Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Pritzker refuses to admit he was wrong about Bailey’s eminent domain claim
Next Post: Appellate court clears way for vote on Workers’ Rights Amendment
Posted in:
* Craig Dellimore interviewed Rep. Dan Brady about his GOP campaign for secretary of state…
Dellimore: The top of the GOP ticket is state senator Darren Bailey, who has sometimes been a bit of a lightning rod with his comments about abortion and the Holocaust and calling Chicago a hellhole. How does that kind of rhetoric play out? Does it excite the base and help you, or can it be a distraction to your race?
Brady: Well, I think that on both sides, Democrats and Republicans, you have that, unfortunately. But I believe that the conservative Republican policies are better than the Democrat tax and spending policies that we presently have. But I think more so than anything, laying out the foundation of what you’re going to do for an office or not. I’m a Republican. I’m supporting a Republican ticket. But I also wish that some of the rhetoric would be toned down, and the focus would simply be what are we going to do for the people of Illinois? Because in my travels, Craig, that’s what people [are talking about]
Dellimore: But sometimes it seems that for whatever reason, bipartisanship and talking about working together is a sign of weakness to some. How do you overcome that kind of an attitude in this atmosphere of politics?
Brady: I think you do and I’ve done it. You work hard. You win the Republican nomination and you show people that I’m Republican enough. Or if Democrats think I’m too Republican, Republicans think I’m not Republican enough, you have to prove that, you have to show that. And the Secretary of State’s office is a unique situation to be in. And that is that people want services. They don’t come in asking where I stand in the Republican line, that Democrat line or any other line. They just want the services and so I can control one thing in my campaign: my message, what I say, what I do. And certainly some of the other rhetoric, rhetoric that’s out there, I wish that would not be the case and it should be toned down. I think it could hurt people statewide. But both sides have a problem. And I think that it’s just a matter of convincing the electorate, he’s somebody I had that faith in, he’s somebody I trust, and he’s somebody I think would do a good job. That’s my charge.
I’m not sure who on the statewide Democratic ticket regularly resorts to Darren Bailey-style rhetoric, but whatevs.
Also, please pardon all transcription errors.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Aug 29, 22 @ 10:10 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Pritzker refuses to admit he was wrong about Bailey’s eminent domain claim
Next Post: Appellate court clears way for vote on Workers’ Rights Amendment
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
“We keep saying hateful and anti-democratic things, and they keep pointing out the things we say and suggesting that makes us hateful and anti-democratic, so as you can see, both sides are to blame here.”
Comment by Roadrager Monday, Aug 29, 22 @ 10:16 am
Automatic “loser” take.
Brady is pathetic for the “both sides”, which is ONLY and pointedly designed to make racist thinkers, conspiracy theorists, and insurrection apologists… happy.
That’s what Brady is doing.
Sure, Brady *may* be saying he wants Bailey “this” or “that”, but make no mistake, it’s not accidental…
“Both Sides” gives aid and comfort to the worst elements of Trump… as Brady admitted that he voted for Trump too.
===But both sides have a problem.===
Truly a cowardly and pathetic way to be a candidate in the Trump era.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Aug 29, 22 @ 10:18 am
I am sure someone has called the Eastern Bloc counties a heckhole before.
Comment by Ok Monday, Aug 29, 22 @ 10:20 am
=== But I believe that the conservative Republican policies are better than the Democrat tax and spending policies that we presently have. ===
Brady has a golden opportunity to tone down the rhetoric without compromising his principles. All he has to do is start using the grammatically correct adjective “Democratic” instead of the jarring, insulting “Democrat” slur. It’s a tiny, easy step.
Comment by vern Monday, Aug 29, 22 @ 10:20 am
=== But I believe that the conservative Republican policies are better than the Democrat tax and spending policies that we presently have. ===
“Which is why I support David Duke, his tax and business polices align with my thoughts”
That would be a ridiculous take, if someone says that.
Welp, if someone in the Cult agrees with you on policy, even if they are the worse elements…
… right Chairman Tracy?
===So, whatever your political leanings, wherever you live - if you want to fight corruption, restore fiscal sanity, grow our economy, and stand for law and order - you’re on our team. It’s time to suit up, work together, and bring home some wins for the people of Illinois.”===
“Exactly right”
Party over character, Party over decency, Party… over it all.
It’s worse and worse the more I read.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Aug 29, 22 @ 10:24 am
“But both sides”…no…stop.
Comment by Dotnonymous Monday, Aug 29, 22 @ 10:24 am
“And I think that it’s just a matter of convincing the electorate, he’s somebody I had that faith in, he’s somebody I trust, and he’s somebody I think would do a good job. That’s my charge.”
Sounds to me as though Brady’s most difficult “charge” is convincing himself.
Comment by Dotnonymous Monday, Aug 29, 22 @ 10:30 am
I’m so tired of the both sides BS and the whataboutisms. It’s just a smokescreen to cover their own glaring failings.
Comment by Manchester Monday, Aug 29, 22 @ 10:31 am
From a DPI release:
===“Then, yesterday, three Trump-appointed justices clinched the vote to destroy 50 years of established law and rip away the constitutional right to reproductive health care from millions of women by overturning Roe v. Wade. This far-right decision seems to be just the beginning of this court’s destructive legacy, a stain on the history of our nation courtesy of Trump and his MAGA Republican enablers.===
Attacking a legal decision and the court that rendered decision which was the product of our very constitution because you disagree with the decision, I think can be described as harsh rhetoric that could be toned down.
Comment by Nagidam Monday, Aug 29, 22 @ 10:31 am
Tone down the rhetoric?
Does JB Pritzker agree with President Biden that the 74 million who voted for the Republican ticket are all semi fascists?
Comment by Lucky Pierre Monday, Aug 29, 22 @ 10:32 am
A different kind of rhetoric than Bailey’s, but according to Politico, Susana Mendoza recently said about Rauner “Kick ‘em in the groin with much joy and pleasure.” at the recent Democrats Brunch. Honestly, very Trump-like in her comments.
Comment by Chicago's Finest Monday, Aug 29, 22 @ 10:36 am
- Nagidam -
Huh. Interesting.
How do you feel that these same three justices made clear that Roe was a “super precedent”, that overturning Roe was not something that Roe and stare decisis should be seen as “in play”?
So calling out possible “fibbing” to the overturning of Roe… no big woop?
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Aug 29, 22 @ 10:36 am
Oswego Willy @ 10:18 am + 1.
“Both sideism” implies some parity in actions. That is far from the reality with the MAGA GOP. Use of hate speech, lies, and phony conspiracy theories have become the accepted norm for that party.
Comment by Norseman Monday, Aug 29, 22 @ 10:37 am
Lucky Pierre,
I hope JB disagrees with Biden on the use of the prefix “semi.”
I’m tired of the worst offenders in US politics clutching their pearls when called out for their terrible behavior. I don’t care about the delicate feelings of Republican elected officials who are finally being called for what they are.
Comment by Homebody Monday, Aug 29, 22 @ 10:37 am
“I believe that the conservative Republican policies are better than the Democrat tax and spending policies that we presently have.”
I especially enjoyed the list of republican policy positions he laid out here to support this statement.
I suppose spelling out a policy of cutting services below sustainable levels, only to force democrats to raise taxes just to get back to the baseline - to then be able to call them ‘tax and spend democrat policies’… probably wouldn’t sound too good. It also might make it seem like you don’t have any ideas.
Thankfully the reporter kept the kid gloves on for him during the interview, to avoid making him answer any uncomfortable questions.
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Monday, Aug 29, 22 @ 10:38 am
Tone down the rhetoric? You assert Biden believes.
Biden does not.
Comment by H-W Monday, Aug 29, 22 @ 10:39 am
Nagidam, you think the current SCOTUS has any credibility? Ever since Bush v. Gore it’s been blatantly political and getting worse.
Comment by Big Dipper Monday, Aug 29, 22 @ 10:39 am
“Does JB Pritzker agree with President Biden that the 74 million who voted for the Republican ticket are all semi fascists?”
If he’s ever spent any time reading about the history of the 20th century, of course he does. It’s not a difficult issue to think through. With regard to the “f” word, I don’t care whether you people realize what you are, it’s enough for me that I see you clearly.
Comment by Larry Bowa Jr. Monday, Aug 29, 22 @ 10:39 am
===voted for the Republican ticket are all semi fascists?===
Do you think those whom voted for a David Duke are racist thinkers?
See, - Lucky Pierre -, there IS a battle going on for democracy. It’s now the #1 issue, ahead of the economy, according to the most recent polling.
I know as you support Trump now, that also means you embrace racist thinkers, insurrection apologists, and especially the conspiracy theorists who don’t feel we in the United States have fair and free elections.
Pick a side.
Picking the Trumpkin cult side is choosing to tear down democracy… as these primaries are showing across the country.
Back to the post, if Brady feels that economic and other policy agreements allow Brady to embrace those in he worst elements of our democracy, vote accordingly
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Aug 29, 22 @ 10:41 am
==Tone down the rhetoric?==
That’s what Republican Dan Brady advises, so acting like it’s something JB Pritzker needs to answer for is bizarre. But you’re a liar and a coward, so I get how desperate you are to change the subject.
==Does JB Pritzker agree with President Biden that the 74 million who voted for the Republican ticket are all semi fascists? ==
The problem with your constant lying, Lyinbg Pierre, is that you’re so bad at it.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/08/25/biden-trump-philosophy-semi-fascism-00053831
Biden called the philosophy behind Trump “semi-fascism”, not any voter.
Comment by Arsenal Monday, Aug 29, 22 @ 10:41 am
Funny how the right loves to label anything left of them communist or socialist but when the tables are turned they melt down.
Comment by Big Dipper Monday, Aug 29, 22 @ 10:43 am
Guys, seriously, do not even play along with the idea that Biden called ELEVENTY BILLION USA PATRIOTS semi-fascists. He didn’t. Lucky Pierre lied. Again.
Comment by Arsenal Monday, Aug 29, 22 @ 10:43 am
ah, playing from the Trump playbook…both sides. No, it was not true then and it is not true now.
Comment by Amalia Monday, Aug 29, 22 @ 10:43 am
I don’t know Brady enough to question his sincerity, but these statements are so true. In a way, Secretary of State is different from a lot of the other offices. It provides direct services that people can easily understand (i.e. how long does it take to get your driver’s license) versus an office like the Treasurer.
Comment by levivotedforjudy Monday, Aug 29, 22 @ 10:44 am
Cite? Sure.
“Threats to democracy top list of issues facing US: poll”
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3610753-threats-to-democracy-top-list-of-issues-facing-us-poll/
Is Brady really telling me that economic and taxing policy agreement should supersede any of those looking to take down American democracy, or even make sure those voters are Brady voters?
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Aug 29, 22 @ 10:44 am
==Attacking a legal decision and the court that rendered decision which was the product of our very constitution because you disagree with the decision, I think can be described as harsh rhetoric that could be toned down. ==
Nah. Attacking policy outcomes is absolutely essential if a democracy is to mean anything at all. It doesn’t at all compare to calling Chicago a “hellhole” over and over or saying abortion is worse than the Holocaust.
Comment by Arsenal Monday, Aug 29, 22 @ 10:45 am
So we’ve heard from two Republican commenters so far, Nagidam and Lucky Pierre. Unfortunately, neither defended Bailey’s rhetoric or addressed Brady’s critique. Both instead cited Democratic rhetoric.
So my question, and I’m honestly asking, is this: Do Republicans bear any responsibility for the words that come out of their own mouths? Or is that decision made entirely by Democrats?
I agree that rhetoric from the Democratic Party is worth critiquing, but that’s not the subject of this post. Is it really impossible to address this subject as a first-order question of what Republicans are saying? Are Republicans so bereft of moral agency that they should be judged by the standard of wild animals, totally blameless for any reaction they have to external stimuli? If the Republicans active here want to make that case, I’d be fascinated to read it. If not, we should get past the schoolyard “who started it” debate and treat every politician like a functioning adult who’s responsible for their own words.
Comment by vern Monday, Aug 29, 22 @ 10:49 am
=== … 74 million who voted for the Republican ticket are all semi fascists? ===
Lucky is being a good little cultist spreading around the malarky.
What Biden is talking about are: those seeking to unlawfully overturn the results of elections; those restricting voting rights on the basis of a party adopted lie; those attacking the rights of marginal groups; those advocating or condoning violence against those with dissenting views; those attacking freedom of the press; those advocating secession from governmental units where the majority of elected leadership is from another party …
Do you see yourself in that listing Lucky?
Comment by Norseman Monday, Aug 29, 22 @ 10:59 am
==Attacking a legal decision and the court that rendered decision which was the product of our very constitution because you disagree with the decision, I think can be described as harsh rhetoric that could be toned down. ==
First of all, the DPI is an NGO advocacy group,not one of the candidates, unlike Bailey.
2nd of all, that decision meant that a fetus, even one that cannot live outside of her body, has more rights than the woman that carries the fetus.
3rd of all, the court has been wrong before. Plessy vs. Ferguson, Korematsu vs US, Oklahoma vs. Castro-Huerta.
Comment by cermak_rd Monday, Aug 29, 22 @ 11:08 am
===Does JB Pritzker agree with President Biden that the 74 million who voted for the Republican ticket are all semi fascists?===
Everything okay, mon ami? This is sort of below the tenor of your usual post. But don’t worry, its just a few more months of this election if that’s what is stressing you out.
In the United States its difficult to apply the world fascist or Nazi without people getting a little ruffled over it and certainly people don’t want to identify as a fascist or a Nazi. I personally prefer the term proto Fascist.
However some of the ilk are out their quite proudly self declaring themselves as White Nationalists and Christian Nationalists while making intentional efforts to make it harder for people of color to vote. Never mind that they’re seeking to enslave people who can become pregnant, banning books that discuss racism, and trying to outlaw discussion of anything related to LGBTQ in the classroom.
Quite a few of the positions being taken by the GOP or GOP elected officials would result in the GOP from being banned as a political party in Britain or Germany and these are just facts so I assume the problem you have is just with the words or implication of the words Nazi and fascist.
Its not our fault if the comparison is accurate. No one is forcing you or anyone else to quack like a duck. You weren’t born a duck. Quacking like a duck is a choice people make. They can choose to stop quacking too.
Comment by Candy Dogood Monday, Aug 29, 22 @ 11:24 am
===But both sides have a problem.==
Does anyone in Governor Pritzker’s family have a laptop?
Comment by Bruce( no not him) Monday, Aug 29, 22 @ 11:38 am
Brady makes us laugh. When in Southern IL he talks about voter i.d.’s and other voter suppression code words In the north he doesn’t. He should stick to being Irish and see what happenss.
Comment by Annonin' Monday, Aug 29, 22 @ 11:47 am
There is no “both sides” argument to be made and attempting to do so only gives legitimacy to insurrectionists and election deniers. I realize that Brady needs those votes but it could very well be subtraction by addition.
Comment by Pundent Monday, Aug 29, 22 @ 11:49 am
For LP, here’s the whole quote. You can all see there is nothing about every Republican. Another exaggeration that redirects any legitimate political discussion.
“What we’re seeing now is either the beginning or the death knell of an extreme MAGA philosophy.” He continued, “It’s not just Trump, it’s the entire philosophy that underpins the — I’m going to say something — it’s like semi-fascism.”
Comment by Jibba Monday, Aug 29, 22 @ 12:24 pm
Why is saying democrat instead of Democratic a slur? This is an honest question.
Comment by honest Q Monday, Aug 29, 22 @ 12:34 pm
- honest Q -
===Why is…===
Use the Google.
Get back to us what you find.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Aug 29, 22 @ 12:36 pm
–Tone down the rhetoric?–
@Lucky Pierre - You’re not liking how something/someone is characterized doesn’t make that characterization untrue.
Comment by Politix Monday, Aug 29, 22 @ 1:11 pm
-honest Q- If using Joe McCarthy’s shorthand Democrat instead of the proper term Democratic is ok, then you wont mind if we start using the shorthand CONS for Conservatives ? Works for me. It certainly isn’t subtly implying anything.
Comment by Anotheretiree Monday, Aug 29, 22 @ 1:12 pm
@ OW
===How do you feel that these same three justices made clear that Roe was a “super precedent”, that overturning Roe was not something that Roe and stare decisis should be seen as “in play”?===
First, my post was about harsh rhetoric, not diving into the complicated discussion of Roe and whether Roe v Wade was or should be settled law. The constitution is an active document which means that ’stare Decisis’ also has the potential to be subject to the circumstances of the will of the people at that time. Point being is you either believe in the constitution or you don’t. The harsh rhetoric on the side of DPI clearly undermines the validity of the court and thereby the constitution.
Comment by Nagidam Monday, Aug 29, 22 @ 1:16 pm
@ Arsenal
===Nah. Attacking policy outcomes is absolutely essential if a democracy is to mean anything at all. It doesn’t at all compare to calling Chicago a “hellhole” over and over or saying abortion is worse than the Holocaust.===
Attacking policy outcomes should be the norm. For that I would agree with you. Attacking the integrity of the court, and therefore our constitution is wrong. Sen. Bailey is not ready for prime time so we can call him out for ridiculous statements all we want it just will not matter. Until the Republican party gets beyond Bailey, DeVore, Curran with Trump added in for good mix, Leaders McConchie and Durkin will have their hands full for some time.
Comment by Nagidam Monday, Aug 29, 22 @ 1:24 pm
@Vern
===So my question, and I’m honestly asking, is this: Do Republicans bear any responsibility for the words that come out of their own mouths? Or is that decision made entirely by Democrats?===
See my response to Arsenal
Comment by Nagidam Monday, Aug 29, 22 @ 1:26 pm
@ cermak_rd
===3rd of all, the court has been wrong before. Plessy vs. Ferguson, Korematsu vs US, Oklahoma vs. Castro-Huerta.===
Hey Willy, care to discuss re: stare decisis
Comment by Nagidam Monday, Aug 29, 22 @ 1:29 pm
Sorry all, lots of post answers…had to actually put some quality time into making a living for a bit there.
Comment by Nagidam Monday, Aug 29, 22 @ 1:31 pm
honest q:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet).
Comment by vern Monday, Aug 29, 22 @ 1:37 pm
oh whoops, that url didn’t work perfectly for some reason, but will still take you to a page where you can click to the epithet page. my apologies
Comment by vern Monday, Aug 29, 22 @ 1:38 pm
==Attacking the integrity of the court, and therefore our constitution is wrong.==
I’m not sure I agree that the statement you posted was “attacking the integrity of the court” over disagreeing with its decision. I don’t really see anything that accuses the Court of impropriety, and I’d note that it singles out three judges, so it’s hard for me to conclude that it’s attacking the Court as a whole.
That being said, I’d also disagree that attacking the court’s integrity amounts to an attack on the Constitution. The Supreme Court is governed by the Rule of 5; with 5 votes on the Supreme Court, you can do anything. That means it comes down to 5 individual politicians, and we attack the integrity of far more politicians than that basically every day without impugning the Constitution.
I’d also question if attacking the Constitution is “wrong”. The Constitution used to condone slavery. It allows internment camps. It has, in my lifetime, been on both sides of the abortion issue. It is a flawed document created by flawed men with mostly noble intentions, so I don’t think attacking it is per se wrong, and I think it’s quite an attenuated argument to say that attacking one of the bodies it established is an attack on it. We don’t say that attacking Congress is beyond the pale, do we?
Comment by Arsenal Monday, Aug 29, 22 @ 2:58 pm
===Hey Willy, care to discuss re: stare decisis===
You want “separate but equal” as an example?
I don’t think this is the good “gotcha” you think it is.
===First===
“First”, if you’re gonna go all about SCOTUS, and seem smart about it, it smarts when what 3 past nominees fibbed about Roe.
It was a WHOLE thing, ask Susan Collins.
There is no “First” as you want, you’d like to say, and I can’t *believe* you wanna say this with a straight face;
===The harsh rhetoric on the side of DPI clearly undermines===
… and yet those 3 nominees were fibbing about where they stood on Roe.
Like I typed, I dunno if all this defending you are doing is working, if you merely look at how you want it.
You want the idea of the constitution, but something things like fixing racist-type “separate but equal” should be seen as… bad… because confirmation hearings that now seem farcical to the honesty of case law… is fine?
And you concern is “hot rhetoric” towards those whom fibbed?
I’d call Susan Collins about the angst.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Aug 29, 22 @ 3:06 pm
=== Sen. Bailey is not ready for prime time so we can call him out for ridiculous statements all we want it just will not matter. ===
So it sounds like your answer to my question is “no.” Bailey, as you describe him, has absolutely no moral agency. He cannot control his behavior and shouldn’t be expected to. Any criticism of him is a waste of time, because he’s “not ready for prime time.” I take that phrase to mean he’s an unskilful politician, which I agree with. What I don’t understand is how that skill level would correspond to how responsible he is for the inflammatory rhetoric he deploys.
But since Democratic politicians, in your evaluation, are “ready for prime time,” they can be criticized for their rhetoric. They’re responsible for their actions. They have the baseline moral agency our society presumes for all adults, unlike the Republicans who get treated as, for lack of a better word, feral.
I don’t think that’s the right way to approach bad conduct by any competent adult. It’s definitely not the right way to approach accountability for people who want to, and sometimes do, wield the power of government. It’s an absurd Catch-22, and I decline to participate in it.
Comment by vern Monday, Aug 29, 22 @ 3:14 pm
=== my post was about harsh rhetoric ===
Like most examples of both sidisms, you attempt to equate today’s violence imbued or vilification filled rhetoric from the MAGA GOP with lessor examples. Strident criticism of court decisions is as American as apple pie.
I’ve been critical of a lot of rhetoric on the left, but it’s asymmetrically less violent, and hate filled than that from MAGA. You also see more acquiescence to this trend by MAGA GOP pols than you do from Dem pols.
Comment by Norseman Monday, Aug 29, 22 @ 3:16 pm
@OW
===I don’t think this is the good “gotcha” you think it is.===
===it smarts when what 3 past nominees fibbed about Roe.===
===
My posts haven’t been about a gotcha moment. You’re no neophyte in the political arena. A political appointee answers a question the way they want but not necessarily the way the questioner wants them to answer? Please, that story is as old as time itself practically. Then don’t vote for the political appointee…as the constitution allows.
===And you concern is “hot rhetoric”…===
lets come back full circle. My “hot rhetoric” comment was in defense of the of Rep. Brady who said both sides have a problem with ‘Hot Rhetoric’.
Comment by Nagidam Monday, Aug 29, 22 @ 3:28 pm
===You also see more acquiescence to this trend by MAGA GOP pols than you do from Dem pols.===
Please read my comment at 1:24pm
Comment by Nagidam Monday, Aug 29, 22 @ 3:31 pm
- Nagidam -
As in before times, info always appreciate a good back and forth, you’ve been one where that tradition has tried to stay true. Appreciate that. OW
Now…
===You’re no neophyte in the political arena.===
I’m a mere commenter.
Ok, sorry, now this…
===A political appointee answers a question the way they want but not necessarily the way the questioner wants them to answer? Please, that story is as old as time itself practically. Then don’t vote for the political appointee…as the constitution allows.===
Here’s my thing, with respect, you can’t complain about the rhetoric towards that body and it’s process, if one readily accepts that nominees will merely fib their way though.
Remember, each nominee was not only testifying to that committee, but in these days, testifying to and in front of the country and the world.
While the 100 members vote, the testimony was for a greater audience, and “letting down” the country by non-truthful testimony will lead towards a backlash
Be well. Appreciate your back and forth.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Aug 29, 22 @ 3:38 pm
Nagidam, I missed the last sentence of that post and like the tenor.
I understand and partially agree with the first part. However, it’s a too involved discussion and outside the subject of this post.
Comment by Norseman Monday, Aug 29, 22 @ 4:02 pm
==A political appointee answers a question the way they want but not necessarily the way the questioner wants them to answer? Please, that story is as old as time itself practically==
Nagidam, if the political appointee (judicial nominee) swears an oath to tell the truth and then “fibs”…. well, that’s a problem, right?
Comment by don the legend Monday, Aug 29, 22 @ 4:29 pm
@Nadigam -
People who sit before Congress and lie are not just lying to Congress, they are lying to the American people.
You cannot argue in favor of the sanctity of the judicial branch and ignore the fact the the appointment process is part of the system of checks and balances
Any of the rest of us seeking a job in America could be terminated on the spot for lying on a job application.
As far as I have seen, the rhetoric has been pretty tame.
Go read you some Tribune editorials about the Illinois Supreme Court rulings on med mal and pensions for comparison.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Monday, Aug 29, 22 @ 9:05 pm