Governor Pat Quinn blindly putting the Democratic Party over the people of Illinois should lead to a new political litmus test

Governor Pat Quinn blindly putting the Democratic Party over the people of Illinois should lead to a new political litmus test

After the great debate on the debt ceiling hijacked Washington DC and the rest of the country a month ago, Americans are fed up with the yelling across the aisle via sound bites on Fox News and MSNBC. Discontent with Congress is at a record high. According to the latest AP-GfK poll taken last week, its approval rating is 12%. The country is tired of party coming before solutions.

"They're so committed to their personal ways, and party's way, that they are having a hard time finding a middle road," Republican Frank Chase, 77, a military retiree from Hopkinton, Mass., said of both sides.

Democrat Laurie Lewis, a Rutgers University professor from Flemington, N.J., agreed with that much. "Elect those who are willing to make compromise on both sides of the hall," she said.

With the country wanting representation based upon solutions rather than party, Governor Pat Quinn again proved he just doesn’t get it. Earlier this week, Governor Pat Quinn blasted Illinois Speaker Mike Madigan for going to a Lemont event featuring Speaker of the House, John Boehner.

Governor Quinn believes that as chairman of the Democratic party, Mike Madigan should stand with Democratic President Barack Obama of Illinois. "Frankly, I’m disappointed," Governor Quinn said. "I know Mike, and he’s been a strong Democrat for as long as I’ve known him. I don’t think going to see John Boehner at some gathering at a house in Lemont... sends the right message. I think Speaker Boehner let the country down, and I don’t think he deserves any support."

What??!!? I would rather have a politician have courage to speak out against the leader of his party if that leader’s policies are taking the country or state in the wrong direction, rather than hiding behind the party’s leader when the ship goes down. It should not take political courage to speak out against a party leader– it should be expected. That’s the problem with our political process. We the People are not represented anymore– party politics and sound bites come before compromise and solutions.

Pat Quinn demonizing all Republicans because they’re Republicans is another example of why our state and country is in the mess we’re in.

I’d much rather see my elected representative sit down with John Boehner– have a beer with him and say: "John Boehner is right" when he’s right; rather than outright dismiss him because he’s a Republican.

To Pat Quinn, going to a fundraiser where John Boehner is present, doesn’t send the right message. Apparently blind faith and allegiance to political party is the right message in Quinn World.

Hopefully, this is the battle line in the 2012 elections. If your elected representative– on any level– blindly supports party, then vote her out. If your representative believes, like Pat Quinn, that he can’t support people on the other side of the aisle, then vote him out. We have to remember, they work for us, not their political parties.

It’s time we vote for people who will fight the good of our state and country ahead of those who will fight for the good of their political party.

Pat Quinn, like many politicians around the country, just doesn’t get that.

Comments

Leave a comment
  • Let me first preface my comment by saying I regularly read and enjoy your blog-and moreover agree with your positions on most issues. However with respect to this post-I have a couple issues. While your premise and envisioned ideal of politics/compromise is certainly in line with mine, it suggests/implies an inherent domgatic equivalenence between the two parties. I simply do not think that's true....even close to true. Democrats clearly...clearly were the adults in the room. (I say that not as a Democrat/Liberal, but simply as someone with their eyes/ears open). In fact, IMO Democrats were far too concessionary, but that I suppose was required when the other side was gleefully and boastfully in possession of the detonator.

    This idea, IMO, that both sides are to blame for the extremely partisan climate of Washington, is simply false. The President has been-to a fault, willing to come to the GOP's side on many of issue.

    Again, your overall desire for non-partisan compromise is well-founded.

  • So, he's acting like a Republican then?

  • I agree with Kool to the degree that both parties are not equal. The GOP, as flawed as it is (nationally), is an American party. The Democrats are a European party. And it should be noted that the mess we are in was created by a left leaning compromise that goes back to FDR. It was a bad compromise from day one.

    Kool is 100% wrong to claim that Obama has been willing to compromise. Sure Obama has mouthed those words repeatedly, but his ACTUAL actions make the lie to the claim. On one hand he pretends he's for compromise, but then he puts forward plans and ideas that are strictly Democrat-sided, left-wing proposals. In short he's lied repeatedly.

    Also, I find this idea that compromise is in and of itself some sort of panacea to be childish. It is not a panacea. It is no natural solution in all cases.

    After all, should we have compromised with the Democrat south to keep slavery? Should we have compromised with the Democrat Party and kept some aspects of Jim Crow?

    I think not.

    I think this mindlessness of putting compromise on a pedestal as if it is mana from Heaven is silly, misguided, and thoughtless.

    Finally, I agree 100% that Quinn has been a joke as a Gov. He's been 100% the union bought governor, he's agreed wholeheartedly with this god awful, voter disenfranchising new district map, he's done so many things that he railed against when he was just a political gadfly... in short he's an abject failure.

  • WTH-My friend, we could go tit for tat all day, but I think it's safe to say that would prove fruitless for both of us. So, let me instead focus on an apparent point of agreement. You said :
    "Also, I find this idea that compromise is in and of itself some sort of panacea to be childish. It is not a panacea. It is no natural solution in all cases."

    Excellent point. 100% True. It is childish, and (this will surprise you) it suggests that an ideal solution does not exist, or is sadly not achievable.

    Look at us WTH-two peas in a pod.

  • In reply to koolking83:

    LOL, I feel pea-ish already! Or does that makes us pod people?

  • Pat Quinn doesn't get much of anything. For instance yesterday he pushed electric cars, but threatens to veto the smart grid law. I bet he will be howling like mad about Com Ed if he plugs in his car, a storm hits and the lights and charger go out. Or if him plugging in his car again results in a voltage drop at Highland Baking.

    However, I spoke about the issues you raise in 500 Words yesterday, and I don't think it is worth repeating, except to note that even Emanuel came close to the take that I did.

  • Thanks all for commenting. I had to leave town after posting last week; apologies for chiming in a full week after the discussion.

    First, defining one party as "American" and another as "European" is overly simplistic. It is akin to Republicans waiving the flag and arguing that Democrats do not love the United States. It's just not true; there are just two different points of view on how our country should work.

    And that is why compromise, IMHO, is paramount. We have two completely different views on how our country should work. Because there is no agreement on which way to govern, we need adults in the room to take Republican and Democratic policies and find a way to work them together. It is not an either/or. We can raise taxes and cut spending at the same time.

    Maybe I'm being idealistic. I just don't see how the parties can't (or won't) sit down and find consensus rather than dig heels in. You can't go to Washington , demand fiscal restraint and gut programs Democrats like and not take the red pen to "Republican" programs. And that program might be the Bush tax cuts for people earning over $250,000 annually.

    I'm not certain that fiscal policy (tax policy) parellels well to the degredation of an entire race of people (rather, I am certain.. They do not equate). Compromise is achieveable on one whereas not the other. I agree that we should not compromise American values with respect to Jim Crow and the post-war civil rights movement. It is interesting to note how Republicans-- particularly Nixon-- used that issue to divide the nation and win elections.

Leave a comment