Jessica G.Kansan, Politics Junkie, and Aspiring Hippie.
Okay, Max very funny. If I hadn't spent most of yesterday reading your copypasta and negativity I may have bought it. Come on! We know you like Paula Basta but this is why I insinuated that you work for her campaign.
Who IS Paula Basta....not whose......geeeeeeze....
And I completely disagree with Peter S. that it is obvious Max works for Paula's campaign. Nothing is obvious under anonymity. By the same token it could be one of Cassidy's supporter trying to make the opposition look foolish but VERY unlikely.
There are two decent people vying for the same office in my honest opinion. Will there be a debate between the two...does anybody know?
I just thought it was interesting that Max posts nothing but pro-Paula, anti-Cassidy posts. The fact that yesterday he knows every detail of the race, but today he acts as though he has never heard of Paula. If he doesn't work for her, he could simply be a strong supporter, but his purpose for joining this site is clear, and I don't think his deception is appropriate.
Jeffrey- I too hope a debate can be figured out. At the very least, both candidates will be speaking at tomorrow evenings IVI-IPO endorsement session from 8-9pm at the Loyola Park Fieldhouse. May not be the head-to-head debate style you are looking for, but it will be a good chance to see the candidates speak.
Unfortunately I don't think Kelly has a CME-group associated financial trader and a Monsanto attorney to give her a combined $90,000. Monsanto? A company with one of the worst environmental records in the entire world? If Paula didn't receive either of those large corporate contributions, her campaign would be several thousand dollars in debt.
Just look at the numbers. Over the past two cycles (which Kelly has a net advantage in, due to Paula's year older $80,000 contribution) she has over 140 separate donors, while Paula has under 40. I am proud of the grassroots, small donor support the Cassidy campaign as received. Combine that with the money she will receive following the endorsements of several unions representing many hard working men and women in the district, and I'm sure Basta's very slight advantage will dissipate.
I did a contributions history check for the large donor, Nancy Schmidt. She has donated 25k to Anita Avalerez and money to other democratic candidates. I believe Paula has gone on the record saying Nancy is a friend and that believes in her and her race. Corporate donations? The donations were from people. The occupation has to be listed by law... I'd be more worried about the corporate influence if it was PAC money... If I donated to Paula. It would say Max... Occupation: Starbucks Barista... Does that mean Starbucks would have some grip on Paula? Additionally, Paula has a combined donor force of over 200 when you look at the donations over time too. And debt? Paula has 60k on hand compared to Kelly's 40k(approx numbers for both here). Endorsements always go with incumbents. It's SOP... Let's quit pretending this is campaign grass roots here. The only thing grass roots about the campaign for 14th district state rep is the volunteers each campaign has, the door knocking, and individual donations. Not PACS or machine money.
Like Paula's own site says, I believe that large contributions need to be prohibited to prevent influence. This isn't like you being a barista at Starbucks and donating- these are powerplayers in their corporations with the ability spend over $90,000 on a campaign. The truth of the matter is that although she is a "friend", she is also associated with the CME group, which just got a massive tax break that Kelly opposed. Would Paula have done the same, considering well over 80% of her campaign is funded by someone with them?
And thousands of dollars from a lawyer from Monsanto? Whose environmental record is literally one of the worst in the world, and whose legal practices are of the most shameful nature, bankrupting family farms in order to force them off their land? Not sure if he was trying to buy influence or is a friend, but I don't think anyone who calls themselves a progressive should ever associate themselves with someone like that, let alone accept money from them. Monsanto money is dirty money, through and through, especially from one of their despicable lawyers.
It has been mentioned before, that people are often judged by the company they keep. A campaign almost entirely funded by two individuals who have a lot to lose, and gain, in Springfield just doesn't sit right with me. And I agree contributions are a good measure of grassroots support, and Kelly has over 3 times the donors.
How is 140 donors 3x more than 200? The large contributions were legal at the time and clearly public record. How else is someone suppose to try to have a fair shake at an election when the money and establishment are geared to protect incumbents? Incumbents have what, like a 95% retention rate? We have a two party system at all levels of government that is geared to keep new voices out. Sure, Kelly and Paula both have small amount donations. But the combination of Kelly's a1s from establishment folks who stand to lose the most with a new voice around, pretty much adds up to the large amounts Paula raised. A campaign in which the same 'company' that has been in power for 15+ years and destroyed our state fiscally, disgraced us with Rod and is backing Kelly, just doesn't sit right with me. I'll take two individual donors over that crowd any day.
Gotta love that... "Hey, they were legal.... at the time". Just because they were legal doesn't make them right. That's why it's illegal now! Accepting the huge donations a few days before the caps went into effect demonstrates a very clear disregard for the spirit of the new law.
And I've already detailed the very clear examples of when Kelly deviated from the machine. She helped restore funding for the critical services they cut, she rejected the Comed rate hikes they supported, and opposed hurting our revenue by giving tax breaks to corporations with billions of dollars in profit. Getting a progressive income tax amendment is one of her biggest priorities, which is a fundamental step to getting our budget on track. She is also dedicated to protecting the hard men and women of the district who are members of organized labor- that's why every major union is lining up behind her.
Time and time again, it's very clear that Kelly is beholden to nobody but her constituents.
I have to say that the simple fact that a supporter of Paula admits to lying to us in order to generate buzz has a negative effect on my opinion. As a die-hard skeptic, I hate to admit it, but as I read this thread, Max's 'Whose Paula Basta?' ruse cast a shadow.
Peter, you're bringing up Monsanto's environmental record? Seriously? Did you know that just two weeks after being APPOINTED to office, Kelly Cassidy voted to allow a clean coal plant to be built in Illinois despite heavy opposition from environmental groups, including the Sierra Club. Since that vote she has taken political contributions from the company. And the lobbyist for the coal company is now one of Cassidy’s biggest fundraisers and supporters. Careful where you throw those rocks Peter. And Ken, full disclosure in case you can't tell; I'm a Paula supporter because I'm a school teacher in Rogers Park.
The clean coal plant is far from a black and white issue, as the Environmental Law and Policy Center supported the revised version that Kelly voted for, because it created special incentives for alternative energy development which the legislative director of the ELPC says is crucial for funding these environmental sources when funds are drying up in this economy.
The legislative director for the ELPC had this to say: “Without that fix to the renewable standard, I suspect that most renewable energy in Illinois would slowly grind to halt,” he said. “This is a big deal, and there are a lot of folks out there who are focused only on the coal plant element of the bill, but to us, the renewable piece frankly trumps the coal piece.”
So it's not even close to the black and white issue you try to portray it as. In fact, it's fundamental to the growth of alternative energy in our state. That's much more than I can say about the actions of Monsanto attorneys, like Paula's donor.
No such thing as clean coal. As a teacher, a mother and a resident of a lake front community, I say we should not negotiate with our environment. I'm standing with the Sierra Club on this -- I'm definately one of those "folks out there who are focused on the coal plant element of the bill" and proud of it.
That's understandable. It's definitely a difficult issue to weigh, which is why we see prominent environmental groups falling on both sides. When the Environmental Law and Policy center says that this bill is fundamental to the future of alternative energy in our state, and that it will "slow to a halt" without it, I think many people will view that as a compelling argument.
Kelly is also the sponsor of the bill to shut down Fisk and Crawford, coal plants that are so close to our neighborhood that we could take the el to visit them.
I too live close to the lake, and see chemical runoff as a major threat. I remember going down to Florida as a child and seeing the "red tides", tons of dead fish and masses of algae. When industrial pollution runs off into the water, particularly nitrates and phosphates, it can cause severe imbalances in the ecosystem and lead to algae blooms.
That's why Kelly is the cosponsor of a bill to increase regulations on factory farm runoff and the types of dangerous laundry chemicals that contain the types of nitrates and phosphates that cause such dramatic problems for our environment.
Hi Peter, well, I am openly gay and I think she is a very diverse person who really cares and has done a tremendous job representing the people in her district. I find nothing wrong with her or the way she operates. I think she deserves a 2nd look.
Give me a break. Lying...Really? How is what I did any different than the people who knew who Bill Brady was but paid thousands on a campaign "who is Bill Brady" I'll tell you how it's different. Firs,t Brady is a disgrace unlike Paula and her opp. Second, I didn't pay anything to start to generate buzz. Third, I never claimed any truths and in fact admitted it was purposely done to generate hype. I am not a staffer for Paula like some of Kelly's staffers that have posted. I wanted to fire up a conversation about a race in my neighborhood. And looking at the correspondence, I think its safe to say I did. Hat Trick to Kyle and Peter too. If people are swayed the other way because of someone's comments on blogs then our democracy is in shambles. I am pleased to hear you are well versed on the race, Ken. Hopefully our comments will only lead to people visiting the other campaign sites and deciding for themselves.
I think the fundamental difference was the "who is Bill Brady" group was a rhetorical attempt to show voters the "real" Brady. Unlike you, they weren't impersonating a citizen unaware of a candidate, commenting on how many signs they saw. You admitted you actually know who Paula is after you were called out by several people, and admitted it was a cheap attempt to "generate buzz". Never mind the fact that your attempt was bereft of any discussion involving policy, experience or plans.
And Sean, I see things from your perspective e as well. It's an incredible opportunity to have two candidates who are members of the LGBT community, and I think either would be a great advocate in the coming fight for marriage equality in IL. I do know Kelly has received the endorsement from Equality Illinois though.
I don't think 'lie', the term I used, is off the mark. Use whatever indirect language you want to describe it, but asking group the question 'Whose (sic) Paula Basta?' when you're a supporter is plainly lying. So it's a cheap trick, adds nothing to the discussion, but moreover, it's a flat lie. Whatever happened to civility?
Equality Illinois backed the incumbent because it's in their by laws. I agree it is a great thing to have to candidates from the LBGT community. My comments are mine and mine alone. I have no affiliation with any camp(unlike some posters. AGAIN my comments were meant to get people talking about the race. I am grateful the correspondence has continued. If you want to talk policy then I'm all in favor. Here's a starter: Our legislature is busy passing birth certificate laws and banning texting while bike riding. Where are the jobs bills? Where are the bills that eliminate wasteful state spending to stem off funding and service cuts. For example, Paula Basta thinks we should abolish townships and positions like highway commissioners.
Glad we can finally turn to policy instead of discredited attacks and cheap stunts.
First of all, I wouldn't talk down about the birth certificate laws. That was an incredible bill that will allow thousands of adopted individuals to find out who their real parents are. While it may not be important to you, it is a pivotal moment in the lives of many.
And in addition to those things, the legislature has also restored critical services (including rehab centers and homeless shelters) while paying for it (a bill Kelly was a cosponsor of), taking a step towards marriage equality in the form of civil unions, and stopping conceal carry.
While abolishing townships and eliminating highway commissioners would save pennies when compared to the overall budget, Kelly is looking for real solutions, including the number one priority, which is the establishment of a progressive tax system. That alone is a huge step towards creating a sustainable and balanced budget. Her second focus will be approaching pension reform in a way that seeks to return it to solvency while simultaneously protecting working individuals- That's the reason the biggest unions in the state stand behind her.
@BEV I just wanted to ask why its wrong to want a plant built for clean coal energy? It will create jobs in downstate Illinois and will foster a fast growing industry, where the US has alot of: Coal. I am tired of importing our resources from Canada and Mexico. It's time we take a chance on Coal again. Should we shut down the Nuke plants, because of the harmful radiation it exposes to all of us?
I tend to agree with you Sean. While there is definitely no such thing as "clean coal", it's certainly cleaner than an average coal plant. We have an abundance of coal, and to a large extent alternative energy isn't as competitive right now as it will be in the future. You are right, we have a TON of coal, which provides a vast majority of our electricity. It will be a long time until alternative energy is efficient and cheap enough to replace the massive amount of coal energy we use. Just to put it in perspective, 25% of the WORLDS electricity is generated in US coal power plants.
This is a clear step in the right direction- it creates jobs in Illinois and buys us time until real alternative energy is viable.
Sean, there's no doubt that coal—as it's presently burned in power plants, or will be in the near future—is not a clean source of energy. (Even low-emissions coal power would require maintaining those environmentally destructive mining operations.) And that means that the folks like Kelly Cassidy who have supported "clean coal" are using the language of environmentalism to obscure less-noble motives. Our support and investment should be in alternative energy sources to create jobs and have a cleaner planet and we should not negotiate when it comes to the environment. Hope that helps reframe the discussion.
Bev, if you are such a staunch advocate of alternative energy, how do you evaluate the claims of the Environmental Law and Policy Center that the alternative energy tax incentives in the Clean Coal bill, "most renewable energy in Illinois would slowly grind to halt"?
That's a very well respected organization that is arguing that failure to vote "yes" on this bill would mean a dramatic reduction in the growth of alternative energy in our state, and that when weighing the options, the benefits outweigh the costs. That's in addition to my arguments above that there must be a stepping stone because alternative energy is not going to replace the massive amount of energy coal creates right now.
A yes vote doesn't mean she's a supporter of clean coal. Peter has said it more times than I care to count that the "Yes" vote could very well be because of the tax incentives for alternative energy. Let's be honest, without those tax incentives, alternative energy will never come to be, because until it becomes produced in small amounts and starts to catch wind (no pun intended) it will never be mass produced (and hence made affordable and the standard). (Source: "Back to Work" by Bill Clinton)
Your "no compromise" stance is awfully similar to that of the Tea Party, and if that's the kind of politician you want, it might be best if you move to a Red state.
Joseph, I don't think being an environmentalist and wanting to set an example that we do not negotiate with our environment would make me a tea party or red. I'm a proud liberal, lesbian, teacher, single mother who enjoys our lakefront and understands the fragile balance we have between man and nature and I want it around for my children to enjoy. That's why we have a primary to choose our Democratic candidate and I don't like her vote on this issue and it's a big one for me. Don't demonize me for that. Oh by the way, I'm a radical no compromise pro choicer and oops, I also have a no compromise stance on full marriage equality. I'm red alright mister! AND I'm voting for Paula Basta.
The way I view this issue is as a "two steps forward, one step back" sort of thing. Yes, on the surface it appears to be "pro-clean coal," but I think the tax incentives and other aspects of the bill outweigh that part. If I had to give $1 to energy, and my choice was either 25 cents to alternative energy and 75 cents to "the other" or my full dollar to "the other," then I'd certainly choose the former.
(And if it's any consolation, I'm "no compromise" on several issues too, so I'll eat my words)
Peter, if you're going to quote the Environmental Law and Policy Center at least make it balanced and quote the Sierra Club also. Here, I'll help you. Jack Darin, director of the Sierra Club Illinois Chapter said regarding the bill that Kelly Cassidy voted for, "“We don’t think we should have to swallow 30-year contracts and underwrite one of the largest sources of pollution in Illinois just to update our energy efficiency policies. We can do that without risk and without billions of tons of pollution, and we should.” He also went on to say that most environmental groups still oppose the project. Kelly Cassidy didn't represent her constituents or the environment on this vote, she represented the company.
The problem is that changing the alternative energy standards alone wasn't the option given to Kelly. The bill was the option, and she was asked to vote yes or no. Given that failure to pass that bill could very well doom the alternative energy she chose to vote yes, because this was almost certainly our only chance to boost that industry. One coal plant isn't going to make a world of difference when it comes to our environment. Once it's built, you aren't going to be down on the beach looking at black skies and poisoned water. What does make a difference is the side of the bill you are trying to ignore, the part where the entire alternative energy industry of the state is not only saved, but strengthened.
It's also tough for you to continue making these arguments when you fail to address the arguments I made above, namely that the use of coal is fundamental in what can only be a slow and steady transition to alternative energy, and that clean coal fills that role better than normal coal.
Combine that with the strong environmental bills Kelly has sponsored, working to eliminate the dangerous runoff from laundry chemicals and factory farms, it's difficult to see how your argument translates into a dichotomy between Paula and Kelly on the environment.
Sorry Peter, let me address the yes/no to the option given: SHE SHOULD HAVE VOTED NO in line with her liberal constituents. The bill was flawed. She needed to work to reframe the discussion. She compromised on the environment. If the only way to boost that industry was to vote in favor of a bill to limit reproductive rights she wouldn't have or would she? If the only way to boost that industry was to vote in favor of a bill defining marriage as between a male and female she wouldn't have or would she? She did not represent our shared values very well with this vote. I'm left with judgement concerns with Kelly and now I'm going to take my chance with the other democratic female. Everyone says they are both good and one let me down so time to give the other a try.
Again, it's pointless to even debate this when you concede several times in a row that our energy consumption, our current dependence on coal, and the fledgling state of alternative energy necessitates the use of coal in the transition period, and that clean coal is preferable to normal coal. This fact shows the significant flaw in your reproductive rights argument as well.
At the end of the day, the alternative energy credits weren't going to be voted on separate, and there's nothing to indicate they would be considered separately in the near future. I know it's tough for us to imagine, but even things like alternative energy credits can be a tough sell to Republican members of the house. It was added to the clean coal bill as part of a compromise.
Her vote clearly represented the shared values of our community- It provides a cleaner transition to alternative energy than the status quo does, it saves the alternative energy industry from destruction, and creates jobs which add revenue to the state and put food on the table. It's a win-win-win.
Selling out to the Republican members of the house is my point. I wish she had not. Civil unions were sold as a transition to equal marriage rights in order for us to compromise to get a bill passed and now full marriage equality has made it to the back burner. Again, I'm left with judgement concerns with Kelly and now I'm going to take my chance with the other democratic female. Everyone says they are both good and one let me down so time to give the other a try before she lets me down again. Peter, thanks so much for the spirited discussion. It's provided me a lot of fodder for my class room.
She didn't sell out to the Republican members of the house. She helped pass a bill that saves and furthers the IL alternative energy industry that would have almost certainly not passed under other circumstances. And for what I believe will be the final time, failure to answer the several arguments I made above makes it very difficult for you to stand by your position. Coal is key to the transition to alternative energy, and this bill both provides cleaner coal to use for the moment while creating the foundation for rapid growth of green technology in the future.
The civil union bill was fundamental to working towards gay marriage. It's sad that you don't seem to see it as a success. Has any state ever skipped civil unions and gone straight to gay marriage? It's passage didn't push marriage equality on the back burner, it has mobilized the LGBT community to begin laying the groundwork for what will surely be a brutal fight. Just last week Kelly and several other state legislators met with local LGBT groups to begin strategizing for the big push for marriage equality.
Peter, I'm twice your age (looking at your picture) and when a person thanks you for a spirited discussion have some respect and be gracious. I'm supporting a different democrat than you are -- it's our choice. Don't demonize me for that. I like Paula Basta and I want to vote for her. How did you know about Ms. Cassidy meeting with other state legislators and LGBT groups -- I looked and looked and I didn't see anything about that. I would be most interested in following that if you could shoot me a link to the article-- it would be nice to incorporate this into the civil rights discussions I'm having in my class room.
Bev, Kelly did start a recent publicity tour with all the usual suspect 'liberal' machine candidates. I hate to concede a point to Peter S. Civil Rights is certainly an important issue but this race isn't going to be won on that. Both candidates are champions of the LBGT community. Although I couldn't find much "championing" on Kelly's part til the recent string of articles Peter cited. Paula broke new ground advocating for gay senior and was inducted into the Gay and Lesibian Hall of Fame for it. She was also former president of Equality IL, continues to fund raise for them. She is a table captain at their Gala. Paula also served on Anita Avalerez LBGT taskforce. Paula recently spoke at a school on anti bullying along with Greg Harris and other gay leaders of the community. Paula has been with her partner for ten years and they attend a slew of fundraisers and serve on host committees. After much searching for Kelly's past involvement, all I find is 'Lesbian Acitivist appointed to state rep' but no mention of her activism. Her website briefly mentions work with an AIDS non profit, briefly mentions human rights stuff but no specifics. She has mentioned her work with NOW adovication for pro choice issues. But even that is vague. Is there anything folks on here can point me too that talks more in depth about Kelly's background?
Max, I always find it disheartening that whenever a politician who you don't like holds an event, you immediately classify it as a "photo-op" or "publicity tour". In this specific case, it was far from a "tour", it was a meeting involving the elected officials that will be fighting for marriage equality in Springfield, and the organizations that will be activating their members and taking to the streets. I think the slew of LGBT organizations they met with would frown upon your characterization of their meeting as a "publicity tour".
Kelly has a long history of LGBT activism, at a legislative and government level. She has been lobbying since 1991 for the addition of sexual orientation to civil rights statutes at a local, state, and federal level. The Sex Trafficking task force she designed with the States Attorney's office was the first in the nation to take LGBT youth into account. And what you call the "so called Liberal machine candidates" who successfully led the fight for civil unions, and will be key players in the move towards marriage equality, believe she will be a strong partner in Springfield for that battle. And she received the endorsement from EQ IL, and although their bylaws prefer incumbents, they also require them to be in good standing, so they seem to think Kelly has done a good job advocating for the LGBT community. She also has the support of some of the legislators you mentioned in your post, who seem to prefer her after working with both candidates.
NikkiCondo owner living North of Howard in Rogers Park.
@Bev - re: your statements, "SHE SHOULD HAVE VOTED NO in line with her liberal constituents." and "She did not represent our shared values very well with this vote.", what makes you think that all liberal constituents feel the same way about the issue as you do? Is it possible that, despite us both being liberals, your values and my values are not the same in all areas?
You have given a good reason(s) you have chosen to vote for Ms. Basta in the coming election and I'm not questioning that decision in any way (nor trying to change your mind). I just think we all (hint, hint: Max & Peter) need to be careful in making blanket statements and assumptions.
Sorry Peter, I am turned off by your approach and tonality from our last discussions. You are clearly passionate about Kelly but you make me feel like I'm talking with one of those campaign staffers that tend to be up in people's face. I don't like that. Question: do you know if State Rep. Kelly Cassidy's children go to public school? Two of my students parents who are supporting Paula Basta, like myself told me they go to an expensive private school.
Oh my goodness, I just fact checked and Kelly Cassidy does not send her children to public school. She sends them to a private school named Francis Parker and it costs $25,000 for tuition -- how many kids does she have at that price. Oh dear Peter I wish you hadn't opened that can of worms. This is just awful. Kelly Cassidy should be ashamed of herself that she is not sending her kids to public schools. I don't want to talk about her anymore. So disappointed. I'm 3 minutes late for class but boy do I have a topic for my kids.
I'm actually not sure where they attend school. But regardless, that's the great thing about our society, that individuals can make a choice to send their kids to a variety of schools based on their educational or theological preferences.
Assuming Kelly's kids do go to a private school, if Paula's proposal were enacted, the taxes paid by parents like Kelly would be taken away from public schools and used to pay for their private school tuition. It would make personal financial sense for Kelly to support vouchers, but it looks like she is prioritizing public education over her own interests.
Since many teachers are firmly opposed to the threat vouchers pose to public schools, and since it is a traditionally Republican proposal, I was curious about your feelings on Paula's proposal for school vouchers.
If Kelly Cassidy cared about education she should show her personal support for public schools and send her children to them and set the example. Sounds to me like she is playing politics -- say and support one thing but act the other way. $25,000 tuition for the school she sends her children. I'm supporting Paula Basta cause Kelly keeps disappointing me. How much do state reps make (I'll check this afternoon).
Paula's plan would mean several thousand dollars per child is taken away from schools like yours and handed to parents like Kelly.
If you are so opposed to what Kelly is doing, surely you wouldn't want her to get a tax break at the expense of schools like yours?
I know you are smart enough to not think "Well, Paula would gut the public school system in order to finance the private school education, affecting my school and every other school in the entire state... But Kelly chose to send her kids to a private school! Vote Basta!"
State reps make $57,619.00 per year. Looks like Kelly made a decision to save up for her children. Unfortunately for her, Paula hasn't enacted her proposal yet, which would cut her private school tuition costs by tens of thousands of dollars per year (of course, at the expense of every public school student in the state!)
I guess it was easy to save when State Rep Kelly Cassidy was previously held a political position in the Cook County State’s Attorney office where she earned a taxpayer paid salary of over $100,000 despite having never attended college. Meanwhile, lawyers in the State’s Attorney’s office responsible for putting away criminals were only paid $55,000. As a staff person with no college education, Kelly Cassidy earned nearly twice as much as lawyers responsible for convicting criminals. It’s good work if you can get it and would allow you to send your kids to a private school with $25,000 tuition. I wonder since she has three kids if that is $75,000/year tuition or do the parents get a volume break for multiple kids?
Peter, I have to fly. Kids are done with their quiz and time for me to educate those public school children. Perhaps more spirited discussion later when I'm home. Thanks again. And thanks for being a little nicer in your tonality today. Much appreciated.
Also wanted to note that making political statements like those above while you are in a public school classroom is a blatant violation of the law. You are on the clock, using a room, electricity, and wifi funded by taxpayer dollars.
I'd recommend against doing that in the future, you wouldn't want to lose your job.
Wow Peter, such vitriolic. I hope all Kelly's supporters are not as caustic. Kelly Cassidy has no college education and held a political job at $100,000/year (with my masters I only get $78,000 and teach kids in public school!) Kelly Cassidy sends kids to private school rather than public schools -- can you think of any better way to support us public school teachers and our schools then sending your kids there? And pays $25,000 tuition for them. Kelly Cassidy voted for clean goal to protect an industry rather than standing by her principals -- hope she doesn't negotiate on reproductive rights and marriage equality for the sake of saving some other industry or to cut some other deal. There are two democrats to pick from -- In my opinion Kelly has judgement issues and let me down so why not give the other democrat a try who's name is Paula Basta. Trying to shut up dissent by saying I could loose my job because I have a differing opinion than you -- shame on you Peter!
You broke the law, pure and simple. You were on the clock in the classroom, earning taxpayer money, on a computer using power and internet paid for by taxpayer money, and you were conducting highly partisan political activity. You wouldn't lose your job because we disagree, you would lose it for breaking the law.
So will you ever respond to the fact that Basta wants vouchers?
Kelly sends her kids to private school, and considers public education funds to be sacrosanct. Paula would rob our public education system blind to help send kids to private schools.
"Kelly Cassidy voted for clean goal to protect an industry rather than standing by her principals -- hope she doesn't negotiate on reproductive rights and marriage equality for the sake of saving some other industry or to cut some other deal."
It's not quite the same thing. Marriage Equality and Reproductive rights are social issues, not industrial/economic issues, as the "Clean Coal" issue is (you can debate that it is a social issue, and to an extent it is, but it's economic and industrial bearings are far greater than its social bearings).
Without her and others "Yes" vote, green energy loses tax cuts and shuts down. End of story. It's an expensive startup cost, and the only way it stands a chance is if it receives tax breaks. (I don't see the Koch brothers and other oil tycoons lines up to fund green energy startups.)
With the "Yes" vote, it gives green energy a fighting chance by giving it a boost. Again, I have to say "two step forwards, one step back" is the best way to describe this issue.
But that's also not the point Peter is bringing up, and you've still failed to even acknowledge his question. Instead all you're doing is attacking Kelly on her choice to send her kids to private school and on her "Yes" vote.
So, I'll ask for Peter; How do you feel about Paula's support of a school voucher system?
Thanks for the help Joseph, but as you can see it did little. All too often you see this in politics- someone becomes so latched onto a candidate that they will consciously or subconsciously ignore information that conflicts with their predetermined choice. I believe it's called cognitive dissonance? Generally there will be denial, excuses, or explanation, but Bev demonstrated a clear cut case of it. It's as though she isn't even reading it. She simply won't accept the information, and acts as though pretending it isn't there will make it go away.
That's we see a public school teacher that is more concerned about Kelly's choice of where she sends her kids to school than the fact that her choice in the race will implement a right-wing education reform plan that would gut public school funding to FUND private school tuition.
Bev, I think many voters, specifically parents with children in public schools, will oppose Paula and her voucher plan to gut funding for public education in their community, city, and the entire state.
Peter, like so many of us, you joined this site recently. How can you claim to be that involved in Rogers Park or politics. Further more, your comments read like a wikipedia page. You are not all that you're cracked out to be. Matt M has creditability issues too. Aside from recently joining, Matt M is listed on Kelly's quarterly as consultant. It would be as if Karl Rove joined a site to sell George Bush. Bev, I hate to concede anything to "peter s" but I hope you are on lunch break and using a personal wifi device like cell phone to post on here. I'd hate for what sounds like a good teacher, to get in trouble over some petty disagreement about Kelly Cassidy and how she is on the record for supporting charter schools and clean coal.
How on earth does just joining this site mean that you're not an involved neighborhood activist?? You don't know Peter's history, just like he doesn't know yours. And even if you're both new activists, what does that matter? The point is, you're participating here and now, so don't dismiss each other just because of recent EB activity.
I'm going to change the discourse here and commend everyone who participates on EB because it's an obvious and public demonstration of your caring for our community. However, I'm going to challenge everyone to also get their butts off the internet, get on their coats, and get
Sorry, I accidentally hit post before I finished since I'm on my iPhone.
Anyway, to finish:
I'm going to encourage everyone to get off their butts, off the Internet, and to get out there and campaign for their candidate of preference. Instead of sitting here and trying to convert the ones who've made up their minds, get out on the streets and start discourse with those who 1) haven't decided, 2) don't know about the race or 3) don't care about the race.
Campaigns are almost always in need of volunteers, and the need for them on these smaller races is even greater. Most likely the difference you're going to make is going to be with voters who aren't on this site and aren't already engaged in the political arena.
Also, word of advice based on my experience, the last thing you wanna do to get a new supporter is talk down about the opponent. Voters would rather hear what you have to offer rather than what the opponent "does wrong."
And finally, can't we all just be glad that none of us are Republicans?
I discovered Everyblock a while ago, but have been a "lurker" for quite some time. I'd catch up on the neighborhood, but I wasn't compelled to start posting until I saw your attacks on Kelly, someone who I support.
I find it funny that my comments read like a wikipedia page, because do you know who writes those pages? Community members who are generally well spoken and have a bit of knowledge on the topic at hand.
Our discussion had nothing to do with charter schools, but since you bring it up I believe Kelly supports the limited use of charter schools as a part of the solution, while Paula has stated that charter schools outperform public schools. If that's the case, wouldn't Paula support replacing all public schools with charter schools?
Saying charter schools are better than public schools? Supporting vouchers that rob our public schools blind to pay for private schools? Does Paula have ANY faith in the public school system?
Peter, I appreciate your support but there was one point I had an issue with. I think it's unfair to say that Paula would support getting rid of all public schools just because charter schools are sometimes better. That's a bit of an exaggeration, although I agree that vouchers are a very serious threat to public education. There's a reason it's mostly Republicans that support them :)
Max- I don't think I have any credibility issues. I was very clear in admitting right off the bat that I help out on Kelly's campaign. But like several other members here noted, that doesn't mean everything I say is automatically false. Anyone concerned about this can feel free to give my posts extra scrutiny or take what I say with a grain of salt.
And I'm not some campaign robot, I've lived in Rogers Park for 7 years now, and also graduated from Loyola. I've been active in the community and absolutely love the area. I chose to work for Kelly because we have shared beliefs, and I think she's been an excellent public servant.
While I've been very straightforward and honest about my work, you have made posts pretending to be someone not familiar with the candidates, in a self-admitted attempt to "create buzz". After that, I think it's difficult for you to accuse anyone of having a credibility issue.
I can assure you I'm not paid to post here (although that would be nice!). I come here as a long time member of the community. I've done significant grassroots work for progressive candidates and groups in our community and city. I'm no mercenary chasing money, I choose the candidates I work for and stand by every one of them. I don't think anyone can be motivated to do this type of work if they don't believe in who they work for.
I'm not trying to conceal anything, and I encourage anyone reading my posts to individually evaluate each claim I make. I'm not here with the purpose of generating buzz or debating politics, just to interact with my community and occasionally notify people about events, which is one of the purposes of this site. That's it.
Yikes, guess my thorough background check isn't complete!
Cullerton was a strong union candidate (endorsed by them all) going against a slumlord with over 130 building code violations who stated that we "need to take a look up to Wisconsin" for inspiration regarding how we deal with unions.
Rahm is progressive in some ways, but I think his 75%+ approval rating, unanimously supported budget, and careful handling of important issues like education and crime speak for themselves. With the exception of a few things he has done that I disagree with, he's done an excellent job of moving our city forward. Our budget is a mess, and tough choices have to be made.
Claypool... not a progressive? Not even sure if this is worth answering but here it goes. I worked for his independent campaign against the machine. He was one of the few to oppose the Stroger tax increase (a very regressive sales tax hike), he cut political patronage and turned the budget around at the Park District. As head of the CTA, he is working to balance a huge budget deficit without raising fares, cutting services, or cutting union jobs by getting rid of inefficiencies and outdated labor standards.
Since you are digging into my background, you may have also seen I served as a Regional Field Director for Democracy for America (one of the biggest progressive groups in the country) during the senate recalls of Walker-supporting State Senators.
Any other questions regarding my background? And what about yourself? What causes have you been involved in? We both went to Loyola and graduated around the same time. I don't think I ever saw you at any College Dems meetings.
I stand corrected. DFA boosts your progressive credentials significantly. Claypool and Emanuel are thick as thieves though. And it is mind blowing how unions endorse people that don't have their best interests at heart. ie..Emanuel trying to privatize the city, cut services, force teachers to work longer etc. People are afraid of him and don't have the stones to stand up to him.... Why not get behind the real progressive like Del Valle? Despite Cullerton's pro union stances and many token incum. endorsements, he is connected to Senate Pres JC and that stinks of the age old nepotism plagued in Chicago politics.
I merely googled your background to prove you are a campaign operative. I never attended any College Dems because I didn't see the point in getting involved in the crook county democratic stuff.
I guess you could say I was disenfranchised. It wasn't until Daley retired that I had a new sense of excitement. I volunteered for Del Valle in the recent mayoral.
When I heard there was an 'actual race' going on in Rogers Park I got even more fired up. Although short of blog chatter and some facebook activity I am not to active as the weather sucks and I work full time.
May be I will phone bank for Paula...My beef is in the process. I personally think after reading each website that they both have qualifications to be state rep. ( Obviously, I think PB has more) But because Kelly is so connected to Ronen who was so connected to Blago and etc - It's that kind of stuff that disenfranchises so many people like me. Paula has a life time of public service fighting on the front lines for people. She sees first hand how policy effects them. Kelly, started out as a staffer to John Cullerton. She has worked for the states attorney and has shuffled between 'system' jobs. She is an insider... Which isn't meant to be completely negative. Sometimes insiders are needed to get things done. But when the insider system is so corrupt... I rather go with outsider.
The mere fact she got the appointment is further testament. Sure you can hit me with the well.. "Paula went for the appointment too" argument but Paula went for it because she is the most qualified given her career in direct service. Either way, the appointment process stinks and I think it's fantastic we have an election!
One other point, the appointment process was not tech unanimous...The votes were weighed by whichever committeeman had the highest voter turnout, which was Ronen. Her vote alone was enough to swing it. I was not there but according to a friend connected to 40th ward org... It was obvious O'Connor didn't like Cassidy and Fagus... Well he's a mood point who does what he's told... The whole thing was pro forma.
If Rahm is trying to "privatize the city" can you name 5 things he has privatized?
Tim Cullerton is "connected" to John Cullerton because he is his second cousin. Believe it or not, he is not close at all with him and first met him after becoming Alderman. And I don't think it's "nepotism" if the voters chose him.
If you wanted to know if I was a campaign operative, you should have asked. It's kind of odd to have my salary information, last name, and info pages on me posted. I know your full name, but I'm not about to reveal it and start digging around.
I don't see how the College Dems has anything to do with "crook county". It's a completely independent organization almost entirely focused on holding events for students. My last year with them we brought Tom Daschle in to speak. I think the only political action we participated in was for Obama. Has nothing to do with campaigns, let alone specific politicians.
As far as background goes, Paula's is fine, but I think Kelly's is much broader, encompassing direct constituent work, lobbying for LGBT rights, budget management, criminal justice, healthcare, and grant work.
But honestly, I'd rather not get into a debate about the candidates here because I am employed by a campaign and it would be inappropriate for me to engage in a back and forth regarding the race.
Emanuel has pushed for 1)privatizing recycling... He implied it would lead to privatizing other services such as 2)road repairs, 3)tree trimming, and 4)sewer repairs. 5) private security forces for protests 6)speeding cameras(to be installed and regulated by a private company that contributed tons in lobbying) and 7) install additional cameras for protests.
As far as privatizing recycling goes, it's a program that the union affected supports. It cuts the recycling budget from $13.8 million to $10.5 million, expands services, and moves some employees to important vacant positions in the department. It's only going private in some areas. It's literally a win-win-win for taxpayers, recycling advocates and union members.
If a public firm can do it equally as good (or better), save money, and treats their employees well (the private recycling drivers receive $25 a hour plus benefits) then there's no reason not to do it. And one of the main reasons he is doing this is because as we know, our budget is a wreck, and these test studies introduce competition, encouraging the public institutions that handle these services now to look for increased efficiency and how to improve service.
The private security forces are required. Even after allowing the CPD to temporarily deputize out of city police officers to help, it may not be enough. I'm sure you know G-8 protests are rarely peaceful, quiet gatherings. Same with speeding cameras. Ignoring the value of the cameras, the city does not have the ability to produce, install, and manage them. Strategic, well thought out privatization can save us desperately needed money, increase service, and still allow for high income jobs.
While you say Emanuel is not a progressive, he received 61% of the vote in Rogers Park, about 4 times as much as Miguel del Valle. He got that much because we know he has what it takes to make the tough decisions to get us back on track.
I agree, charter schools pose a dangerous threat to public schools, and it's one of the things I disagree with Kelly on.
But while Kelly believes Charter Schools can serve a small role in education reform (which may be true, as long as the role is extremely limited, Paula is on the record saying that Charter Schools perform better than Public Schools (which leads me to believe she would favor a larger role), and she's in favor of school vouchers.
If charter schools are the hammer, then vouchers would be the six inch rusty nail in the coffin of Public Education.
Kelly Cassidy says "public education is our strongest asset" yet sends her kids to a private school that has a tuition of $25,000. She says one thing and does another. Aren't the public schools in Rogers Park good enough for her and her children? She could have even picked a charter school (as a limited role) but nope, opted for Parker Francis. (thanks Bill and thanks for the Peter S. = Lauren Peters)
Ah Bev, you are back! Maybe now you will address Paula's support of using state money to help parents send their children to private schools, but I'll bet $100 that you will not. Any takers?
Kelly considers public education funding to be sacrosanct (that's why she's fine with paying tuition and having her tax dollars go to pay for schools like yours). Paula supports vouchers and other methods that would encourage private school attendance.
One candidate sends her kids to private school, the other wants to help all kids go to private school, and you side with the latter? C'mon Bev, that's almost as whacky as doing partisan political activities on the taxpayers dime!
And I don't know who Lauren Peters is, or what you mean by saying I = her.
Who are you to question my authenticity? I could just as easily say you're Paula Basta...or her partner. I don't know Kelly Cassidy but I do know Paula. I'm not saying it again. I am not involved neighborhood politics or City Hall politics. It holds no interest to me. Does it really surprise you that someone could know PB and not like her much? Does everyone like you? How nice PB is your friend. Not everyone falls into that "class"--not even the ones she invites to friend her on facebook. How nice you appreciate all PB's done, etc. So vote for her. No one's stopping you. I'm not too impressed w/ what she's done. I can't throw my support behind someone I don't find trustworthy, honest or sincere.
PB's partner does NOT attend meetings. NEVER. As I stated in my earlier post, she told someone I know her reason for wanting NO involvement in her Condo Assoc. She said she couldn't stand mixing with all those "personalities". That will be a significant problem for her if she's elected, wouldn't you say? Doesn't she think she'll have to "mix" with "personalities" in Springfield? Or can she stand it for the right price?
People have a right to know of a candidate's character. I'm just sharing my views, which are as legitimate.
I don't care who you think I am. I have been totally honest about who I am and what I know. Don't ever again accuse me of being someone other than I claim to be unless you have conclusive proof.
Someone on this thread wanted to hear them debate. As far as I know this is the only debate scheduled.
DEBATE THIS FRIDAY NIGHT AT MARY'S ATTIC
Gay Chicago TV will be hosting a debate between State Representative Cassidy and her challenger Paula Basta. Come hear Paula and Kelly on Friday, March 16th in the last chance to hear from both candidates before the primary election. The debate will be at Mary’s Attic (5400 N. Clark St.) at 5PM. The debate will also be broadcasted online at 9PM at www.gaychicagotv.com.
Room is not gigantic and Anderonville has a parking problem so come early and have a drink or food while waiting