Schock unopposed thanks to “ruthless tactics” he once decried

Eleven years ago, Aaron Schock was nineteen, just out of high school, and a candidate for the Peoria Public Schools Board of Education. At the time, 200 signatures were required to get on the ballot, and he filed 220.

Attorney Bob Hall, a close friend of Schock’s opponent (board president Rhonda Hunt), contested the signatures and found a number of irregularities. One of the petitions wasn’t signed by the person who circulated it. Several of the signers were not registered voters. Some of them didn’t put their addresses on the petitions.

“You might say it’s picky,” Hall told the Journal Star. “But pickiness is exactly what the Legislature expected.”

Hall prevailed and Schock was thrown off the ballot. Everyone remembers what happened next: Schock mounted a write-in campaign and beat Hunt for the school board seat anyway. It’s a real David vs. Goliath story.

Not so well remembered is Schock’s initial reaction to getting booted from the ballot.

“I think its ridiculous,” Schock was quoted as saying by the Journal Star on February 2, 2001 — eleven years ago today. “It shows Rhonda Hunt’s true character, that she is willing to use ruthless tactics and try to keep me off the ballot, and to stop the people of Peoria from having a choice of who they want to represent them on the School Board.”

According to the paper, “[Schock] said these were small mistakes, and he doesn’t think it jeopardizes the integrity of his ballots. ‘It was not intentional in any way. I am new to the political process. The technicality they have got me on was human error. I think it’s ridiculous. This is why people don’t get involved in politics. I think it is a disgrace in American politics.'”

Fast-forward to February 2, 2012. Schock is now the incumbent U.S. Representative from the 18th Congressional District, and he is being challenged in the primary by Darrel Miller. Some friends of Schock contested Miller’s petitions, and today Miller was tossed from the ballot:

Last month, Central Illinois Republican officials Michael Bigger of Wyoming, Ill., and Katherine Coyle of Peoria filed official challenges to Miller’s candidacy with the State Board of Elections. Bigger said he pursued the objection independently, not at the request of Schock’s campaign, after noticing several signatures collected by Miller came from Schock’s “close, personal friends.” He said that made him suspicious.

Miller had expressed confidence that enough of his 730 signatures would survive to give him the required 600. But a records exam and subsequent review found Miller’s petition contained only 583 valid signatures, 17 short of the minimum requirement. […]

Miller told WJBC on Thursday that he was certain his signatures were from registered voters who live in the 18th District. But Miller said the board’s questions centered on the “genuineness” of his signatures – specifically the 80 or so that were printed names, not traditional signatures. He said he lost around 50 signatures only because they were printed. […]

Miller represented himself during Thursday’s session in Springfield, and he admitted he was in “over his head.” His advice to anyone else looking to run for Congress: get three times the number of required signatures, to be safe.

Technicalities. Small mistakes. Someone new to the political process and in “over his head.” Sound familiar?

Miller was a gracious loser by all accounts. It could be that he’s older, wiser, and more circumspect in his speech than a 19-year-old kid. Or maybe he’s just accepted the fact that politics is a dirty business.

But what does Schock think about this? Surely his friends told him they were going to do this. Why didn’t he stop them from disgracing American politics? Doesn’t he think this stops the people of the 18th Congressional District from having a choice of who they want to represent them? Doesn’t he think this keeps good people from running for office? Doesn’t he think his tacit approval of these “ruthless tactics” reveal his “true character”? Or has he changed his mind over the past 11 years?

“Schock’s campaign declined to comment on the state board’s decision.” (Journal Star)

My suggestion to Miler: Run as a write-in.художник на икониИкони на светци

17 thoughts on “Schock unopposed thanks to “ruthless tactics” he once decried”

  1. Mr. Schock is now a super-star in politics. Unfortunately it seems he has forgotten where he came from in just a few short years.

  2. Collecting 600 qualified signatures is a relatively simple task that can be done in a weekend. Surely there must be some minimal threshold to qualify, wouldn’t you agree? If he (Miller) couldn’t competently perform that relatively simple exercise how would he perform in Congress? I’m surprised that you, CJ, being a stickler for details would see it any other way.

    He also has options. As Schock did, he can wage a write-in campaign, although that does require considerably more effort but perhaps worth it if he is committed to his message. Schock can blame his earlier failure to qualify for the ballot on the fact that he was 18, and short on knowledge and experience in the ways of the world. What would Millers excuse be?

  3. That would be hilarious if Schock were to be defeated by a write in. It won’t happen but it would be hilarious.

  4. That’s one of the great things we still have the freedom to do in this country…if at 1st you don’t succeed by getting on the ballot, do a write-in campaign. Many folks all over the USA, including Schock, have won a race that way. I hope Mr. Miller does pursue this, conduct an honest, clean, campaign on the issues, and give voters in the 18th District a choice when it comes to the Republican primary on March 20th.

    I’m now in the 17th District, so I wouldn’t be able to vote for either one anyway.

  5. Introspection might be too much to ask. However, lack of introspection does lead to hypocrisy.

  6. Mahkno – that would be hilarious if an asteroid dropped out of the sky and knocked you silly. It won’t happen but it would be hilarious.

  7. Career politician already formed and performing whatever function Secretary of Transportation La Hood tells him to. Aaron’s hypocrisy was evident when he showed up at the ribbon cutting for the Warehouse District when he railed against the program (TIGER II) and even went so far as to voice that opinion in the Journal Star. He was there for the photo op. We even find out he has been missing votes in Congress, but his explanation is these votes were perfunctory and he felt it was more important to be here in his district. Now that is a clever way of saying he was stumping since this is an election year.

    Aaron’s hypocrisy in this matter is apparent, but even more apparent is the total blackout of a man who took the time to get the 600 votes walking door to door. It seems to me the press has taken it upon themselves to decide whether or not Woodmancy, Democrat on the ballot for the primary on March 20th, will get even a few words of exposure. I guess unfair politics abounds these days, huh, C. J.

  8. Here’s some exposure for Woodmancy. This comes from an article by Karen MacDonald that ran in the Journal Star last year. Woodmancy is:

    • • Convicted felon, still on probation until 2013
    • • Convicted of criminal theft for stealing from a family member and that person’s now-shuttered Bloomington-based business in 2006
    • • Sentenced to jail time, probation and $45,000 in fines and restitution
    • • Charged with misdemeanor battery and pleaded guilty in 2008
    • • Pleaded guilty in 2009 to driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol
    • • Has more than a dozen other traffic tickets, including driving on a suspended license
    • • His license has been revoked and most of his fines from the traffic tickets have been referred to collections
    • • Taking online classes at Kaplan University for a bachelor’s degree in political science
    • • On leave since 11/1/2011 from Gumby’s Pizza in Normal, where he is the assistant manager

    And, just for equal time, here’s some information on his primary race opponent: Woodmancy’s opponent in the Democrat primary is Steve Waterworth, “an Illinois Air National Guard retiree who also served in the Air Force during Vietnam,” and currently “serves on Mason County’s Zoning Board of Appeals and is town clerk for his local township and president of his area’s park district.”

  9. Let’s clarify, C.J., since your coverage was obviously done from less than complete information.

    Matthew Woodmancy has admitted his record, which was before his decision to run for office.

    Matthew Woodmancy is now living a life within the law and has expressed regret for his past decisions.

    Matthew Woodmancy is up front about his platform and his intentions if he is elected to the Congress, including his plans for meeting with the constituency on a regular basis and voting in line with their needs, not the parties.

    Matthew has posted his platform, his beliefs, and his schedule constantly, keeping voters informed as to his schedule and his commitments.

    Steve Waterworth has not posted any platform or commitments, has yet to reveal any plans for how he intends to improve the economy, and has the dubious distinction of having lost against Republican opponents in 2006 and 2008.

    Matthew Woodmancy has responded to all requests for information from a variety of media sources and has done so without hedging or doublespeak.

    If you are going to be fair, then be fair, C.J. Matthew has something to offer, something to give back.

    Oh, and Matthew has also signed and been endorsed by U. S. Term Limits, as well as Move to Amend. He has publicly stated he will not accept PAC or large donations that might obligate him to anything not in the best interest of the people of the 18th Congressional District.

    I do not believe Mr. Waterworth has agreed to either.

  10. and yet Mr. Smith you had posted some months ago about your splitting from Woodmancy. Wind change direction again?

  11. Thank you. Matthew and I have come to an agreement. I will not hold his youth and inexperience in dealing with people against him, especially when he came to me with a sincere and contrite apology. I still believe the man would make a much better representative that either Schock or Waterworth.

  12. So what does Mr. Schock need campaign money for? He is bringing in Mr. Romney for a very expensive fund-raiser for which he needs no money? What does he do with this money?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.