Peoria’s only daily newspaper has endorsed Jim McConoughey for Congress. They said he had a slight edge over Schock because “there have been too many red flags regarding [Schock’s] readiness.”
I, of course, think they made a wise choice. Tazewell County Board Chairman Jim Unsicker also endorsed McConoughey.
Escambia County, Florida, commissioners have decided on their first choice for a new County Administrator. It’s not Randy Oliver, who was a finalist. He came in second, according to the Pensacola News Journal.
Hat tip: Peo Proud
Jehan Gordon recently announced that she was convicted of shoplifting in 2000. What she didn’t mention was that she just paid the fines associated with that crime this past week.
According to the Clerk of the Circuit Court in Champaign County, Ms. Gordon’s theft charge from June 29, 2000, Case #00CM00657, was paid this past Tuesday, Jan. 22, 2008, via credit card. The fines totaled almost $400. All those court costs have been outstanding for over seven years, including time she was running a campaign for the 92nd district seat.
Here’s how it appears on the Circuit Clerk’s website:
RECEIPT # DESCRIPTION AMOUNT DATE PAID 170628 CLERK 25.00 2/27/01 474682 AUTOMATION FEE 5.00 1/22/08 474682 DOCUMENT STORAGE FEE 5.00 1/22/08 474682 COURT FINANCE FEE 25.00 1/22/08 474682 STS ATTY 10.00 1/22/08 474682 ARRESTEE’S MEDICAL 10.00 1/22/08 474682 LOCAL ANTI-CRIME FEE 5.00 1/22/08 474682 FINES 100.00 1/22/08 474682 VIOLENT CRIME VICTIM 12.00 1/22/08 474682 SUR CHARGE-OLD 8/40 12.00 1/22/08 474682 LEADS MAINT FUND 3.00 1/22/08 474682 COURT SECURITY FEE 15.00 1/22/08 474682 CR CARD CONVEN FEE 15.00 1/22/08 474682 COURT SERVICES FUND 30.00 1/22/08 474682 ATTY FEES P D 100.00 1/22/08
Ms. Gordon was also cited for operating an uninsured motor vehicle in Champaign County (Case #04TR11478) on May 12, 2004. She didn’t appear at her court date on June 24, 2004, and was fined $200. Those fines were paid just two months ago, on November 26, 2007. That was more than three years after the incident and after she entered the race.
While I was willing to write off her youthful indiscretion of seven years ago, the fact that she left that judgment and at least one other unpaid all this time is very troubling. Essentially, she didn’t finish paying her debt to society, so to speak, until just this week. Unless the circuit court is wrong in its dating of when the fines were paid, this is pretty damning to her candidacy. She should immediately withdraw from the race.
Incidentally, she also shows up in the McLean County Circuit Court system for a traffic violation (Case #2007TR025410) from Sep. 20, 2007, that they describe as simply “UNLICENSED” (all caps in original). Not sure what that means — driving without a license, perhaps? Her last court appearance was Dec. 17, 2007, and the case is now listed as “closed.”
Jonathan Ahl has the inside scoop:
WCBU News is reporting this afternoon that Henry Holling, a retired Caterpillar executive, is still the choice for interim city manager. A committee of council members along with City Attorney Randy Ray are hammering out the final details. Sources say at least three council members voiced concerns about Holling.
You can read more details at Jonathan’s blog.
On Friday, Oct. 26, 2007, Mr. Holling was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol after he crashed his car into a light pole near W. Giles Lane about 8:55 p.m., according to a Journal Star report on Oct. 30. Holling retired from Caterpillar on June 1, 2007. When he retired, he was the “manager of social responsibility initiatives.”
Jehan Gordon held a press conference today. She didn’t announce any new policy ideas. She didn’t announce her stance on any controversial matters in the 92nd district.
No, she announced that she was once convicted of shoplifting:
“As a teen I was charged with a misdemeanor for attempting to take a bracelet from a store,” Gordon said. “This life experience taught me a lot. It is one of the reasons why I work so diligently with young people today because I know what it’s like to be young and impressionable.”
The article says this happened in Champaign county when she was 18; she’s now 26.
What possible reason could there be for her to announce this? Was someone threatening to reveal it to the press, and this was a preemptive confession? Or is this a campaign strategy designed to endear her to voters for her transparency and openness?
Perhaps a more pertinent question would be, should we care? Is this piece of information relevant to her candidacy? It was a misdemeanor, on par with a traffic citation. Should we be questioning candidates about their speeding tickets, too?
The graduation issue was pertinent because she made a claim in a campaign ad that was false. The shoplifting conviction, on the other hand, happened eight years ago. I can’t help but think this was a tactical error. She didn’t need to reveal this information, and it would likely have backfired if someone else tried to make an issue of it. By calling attention to it herself, it gets everyone talking about her faults instead of her virtues or her policy initiatives. It’s a distraction that she’s brought on herself.
I think this revelation, despite her attempt to go on the offense with it, and despite the fact that it’s arguably irrelevant, will end up hurting her candidacy more than it helps.
My wife told me she heard this on Glenn Beck recently and thought it was funny. It is. If you haven’t seen it yet, enjoy:
I’ll be pulling a Republican ballot in the primary, but I’m still a little undecided on who to vote for. Who do you think is the best candidate? This thread isn’t limited to Republicans — if you pull a Democratic ballot, I’d like to hear who you favor in that primary as well. But more important than who you favor is why you favor them. I’d like to know what it is about the candidate that made you decide, “that’s the person I want to vote for!”
If you haven’t already, check out these two posts from two great bloggers:
That’s the sentence for the four boys whose careless actions took the life of Danny Dahlquist. It was a plea bargain in which they agreed to plead guilty to involuntary manslaughter in exchange for the reduced sentence. They also have to pay monetary fines and court costs.
What do you think? Was justice served?
The jail time was a surprise — speculation was that they’d get off with only probation. I think jail time is appropriate; in fact, even six months seems a little short for taking someone’s life. On the other hand, there will be those who think that six months is too long for these “good boys” since it was, they say, just a “prank” that went horribly wrong.
I don’t see it as just a “prank,” on par with short-sheeting someone’s bed or TPing a house. This was a lethal combination of underage drinking and incendiary devices. Everything that happened that night was illegal. It was illegal for someone to deliver alcohol to someone underage. It was illegal for the underage students to be drinking. It was illegal to possess roman candles. It was illegal to use those roman candles to criminally damage someone’s property. What’s the difference between this and a drunk driver accidentally killing someone with his car? You can get 3-14 years in prison for aggravated DUI that results in the death of one or more persons. In light of that, six months seems pretty lenient.
And I know I’ll get flak for this, but ask yourself honestly, if this had been four African American youths down on Krause Avenue that did this exact same thing, what do you think public sentiment would have been? “Oh, these are good kids; go easy on them”? “Six months is too long; they should have only gotten probation”? I think we all know the answer to that.
Monday’s Word on the Street column mentioned that Aaron Schock got the endorsement of the Sangamon County GOP. Do you know why he got the nomination of the Sangamon County GOP? According to State Journal-Register reporter Bernard Schoenburg, a big reason is simply because he’s the perceived front-runner:
“I guess one of the things you have to take into account is that all of the polls that we have looked at and studied indicate that he … is in the lead and will probably win the nomination,” [Sangamon County GOP leader Tony] Libri said.
“It was a tough decision, because I’ve got to tell you, I like the other two candidates very much.”
I wonder what polls they looked at — Schock’s own poll numbers that he released, or an independent poll. I’m not aware of any independent polls having been conducted in this primary contest. Did Sangamon County conduct their own poll? I think mere front-runner status is a dubious criterion for endorsement.
It’s worth noting that the endorsement isn’t especially strong, either. They like the other two candidates just as well, apparently:
He also noted that, similar to the presidential endorsement, he’s not insisting that all loyal party members toe the party line in the race for the 18th … “If one of our precinct committeemen or if some of our members feel strongly about this and want to go with somebody else, we will honor that,” Libri said.
Good. I’m glad to know I have the Sangamon County GOP’s blessing to vote against Schock if I wish.