More McHenry County Blog

In answering a question about corruption and trust in government, McSweeney revealed that he would only serve 3 terms and that congressmen should not be allowed to be lobbyists after leaving office. McSweeney also pointed out that Bean has spent “$102,000 on postage” on “campaign-like mailings.”

Bean defended lobbyists, pointing out that children with juvenile diabetes were in her office lobbying for embryonic stem cell legislation.

(I found it disingenuous, but it probably worked with the audience.)

“If I had a nickel for every time Melissa Bean has called me an extremist,” Scheurer said his campaign coffers would be full.

(I got this quote incorrect. Here is the correct quote:

I'm going to Washington and bringing our troops home, and after they come home, I'm coming home. If I had a nickel for every time the incumbent Democrat proudly called herself an independent or a moderate, our campaign coffers would be as full as hers.

I have also posted the correct version here, along with links to the Northwest Herald article from which it came, and the Daily Herald's coverage.)

“Our government has been bought…and paid for by big (business).

“Make no mistake…I’m the independent.”

Immigration is one issue I was unable to sort out the differences in the candidates’ positions. All seem to want to secure our borders. McSweeney used the issue to attack Bean:

Representative Bean vote for the…bill. A few minutes before, she voted against it.

Do you notice a campaign theme here?

Bill Scheurer tied his opposition to the war in Iraq into the immigration question:

I believe the only way to secure our borders is to bring our boys home and put them on the border.

Bean did not even try to answer the question until the last 10 of her allotted 60 seconds. She talked about needing to build a fence and something else, but I didn’t catch it.

Flannery asked about corruption and runaway funding.

Scheurer gave something that surely will appear in every story:

"I had to buy my own son his bullet proof vest…(because the Bush administration didn’t provide it)."

He called for public financing of campaigns, which would include allowing free broadcast and cable air time to candidates.

Bean pointed to an amendment she had introduced (but I don’t think she got a vote on) which would list every member’s vote on the internet, plus stated she was in favor of “publicly funded campaigns”

McSweeney believes every campaign contribution should be listed on the internet within two days. He criticized the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s “almost $1 million” TV campaign in support of Bean.

And, said that Bean’s having “taken money from the unions, promised them she’d vote against the Central American Free Trade Agreement and, then, vot(ing) for it” led to “cynicism.”

In answer to the question of how the three would represent those who are poor and not active citizens, McSweeney said he had learned a lot by knocking on over 8,000 doors and called for repealing the unfounded mandate of No Child Left Behind and proposed lawsuit reform to keep doctors in Illinois.

Scheurer said,

The clear reality is that neither of these two candidates can do that (represent the poor). Both of these candidates get their money from corporate interests.

Statisticians would love Scheurer’s comment:

A mean average can be very mean,

but I doubt there were many in the audience who understood his humor.

Scheurer also called for “universal health insurance.”

The next question sounded like McSweeney’s comment on the federal No Child Left Behind law. It seemed that the questioner was reading from his script.

That allowed McSweeney to announce his support of state legislation called “the 65% solution.” It would force 65% of money spent on education to be spent in the classroom, while only 59% is spent there now.

Scheurer agreed the No Child Left Behind law should be repealed and took a massive swipe at the federal government’s even being involved in education:

I think the only role of the federal government is to help equalize funding in education (between rich and poor districts.)

I couldn’t write as fast as he was talking, but I think I heard him come out in favor of some form of vouchers, although he did not use the word. He talked about people being able to make choices, concluding:

We can do this ourselves.

Again not addressing the question until late in her 60 seconds, Bean took the opportunity to take a shot at McSweeney:

I’m glad that Mr. McSweeney would follow my lead on earmarking reform and support of small business.

She then talked about what she had done on the two subjects, which had nothing to do with education, plus inserted that she had 7,500 donors.

Her final paragraph was that she “would either reform or repeal” the No Child Left Behind act.

Flannery asked what priority should finding Osama bin Laden have.

Scheurer again came up with the best sound bite:

President Bush told the Taliban government that they had 3 days to turn him over. He’s had five years and hasn’t found him.

Scheurer added that the search for bin Laden was “a diversion.”

Bean said,

Yes, it is a top priority for our nation. Terrorism is on the rise.

McSweeney added,

Absolutely. We should make it (a top priority.)

Then, he appealed to those not wanting the Democrats to take control of congress:

This race may decide who will control the House of Representatives

and said that Congressman Bean voted for a motion to cut the monitoring of overseas terrorists’ phone calls.

Next came the comic relief.

“Say something nice about your opponents.”

Bean complimented Scheurer’s sincerity “about his position on Iraq.”

Then, she complimented McSweeney’s “commitment to our community (both live in the Barrington area) and their good works.”

McSweeney said Bean was “a hard worker” and praised Scheurer for telling “me where he stands on the issues.”

Scheurer pointed out,

You’ll notice there was no need for the timer on this one

before saying,

We’ll have someone working hard for you (no matter who gets elected).

There next was a question about the Democratic Party judge’s decision to invalidate the ability of the Bush administration to tap international terrorists’ calls.

McSweeney through it was a “terrible” decision and tried to pin the tail of Bean’s having cut off funding for the program.

Scheurer said,

Of course, I think the court decision was correct.

He then waxed philosophical, but I only caught the first part:

Terrorists can never destroy a free society. However…

Bean followed up with

I do support improving our intelligence…I would have voted against anything deemed illegal.

There were four audience questions next on

· Immigration and penalizing employers who hire illegal aliens
· Abortion and stem cell research
· Intelligent design (now, there’s a real federal issue) and
· Pensions

All seemed to come down on the side of penalizing employers who hire illegal aliens, but McSweeney managed to get in another

she voted for it before she voted against it.

On abortion, Bean, saying she was pro-choice, but,

Both of my opponents oppose abortion.

(Although an extraordinary number of her campaign contributions come from those all over the country--through Emily’s List--who favor abortion, at least Bean doesn’t use the tradition zealot's “anti-choice” label on her opponents. I guess that makes her sound more moderate on the issue than she is.)

McSweeney countered with

I do favor exceptions for rape and incest.

(At least I think that’s what he said.)

Scheurer put a different twist on the subject when he said,

I am opposed to abortion as a method of birth control.

"Less than 3% of (of abortions) are for health of the mother reasons," he said.

It has become a method of birth control after the fact.

On intelligent design, McSweeney said that teaching evolution is the basis of science, but that local schools should have the “right to teach intelligent design in addition to evolution.”

Scheurer got off a good shot by characterizing his opponents

Unlike the candidates from the two state parties…

He then returned to what I hope I haven’t mis-characterized as his ”voucher” position:

Free schools were students and their parents are free to select the schools they want to attend

would solve that problem.

Bean’s position:

I do not support ending the Department of Education, (abolishing federal funding of the) Arts or bringing intelligent design into our science rooms.

On pensions, all three took a hard-nosed approach to companies escaping their pension obligations through bankruptcy. (That might be because of the large number of United Airlines’ pilots in the 8th district.)

Scheurer got to bash the “corrupt and incompetent businesses” first. He argued for allowing “zero” stock and management bonuses when such a company comes out of bankruptcy.

“Again, they buy the Congress. They buy the White House.”

Bean told of her having voted to shore up the Pension Guarantee Corporation and how she wanted to preserve and protect Social Security.

Then, she tried to repair the damage McSweeney had inflicted with his “she vote against it before she voted for it.”

My opponent doesn’t understand the motion to recommit.

McSweeney wanted to pass legislation prohibiting the dumping of pensions in bankruptcy court.

In closing statements, Bean again tried to repair McSweeney’s “flip-flop” charges. She charged McSweeney was trying to “reinvent himself as a tax cutter” after opposing a tax cut bill when he ran against Congressman Phil Crane.

“Some say, ‘One good term deserves another,’” she concluded.

(Does anyone hear a television ad tag line?)

McSweeney said,

Congressman Bean is a fine person.

She’s just wrong on the issues.

Scheurer got the last words.

He pointed out only five times had third party candidacies like his gotten on the ballot.

We’re going to bring our kids home and take care of them when they get here.

(This is the only quote that got into the CBS report.)

Scheurer concluded the debate with

If you don’t send me to Washington, you are voting to continue this war.

Providing the most star quality to the event was having Channel Two’s political editor Mike Flannery as one of the three asking questions, although I did see State Rep. Jack Franks (D-Bull Valley) in the room.

= = = = =
Just saw the Channel Two report on the debate. If the female reporter is not on Congressman Bean’s payroll, she should be. She aired Bean’s prepared statements, reported virtually nothing on Scheurer and, although more on McSweeney, did not use one of his “she vote this way before she voted that way,” while allowing Bean’s rebuttal that McSweeney did not know what a motion to recommit was to run in full.

And, later in the news cast, the U.S. Chamber's misleading ad in support of Bean ran.