Comments on: Politics: Schock picks up Farm Bureau endorsements

By: Ginny Sue

Ginny Sue — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 08:49:53 +0000

MJ & Allison;
Sorry I didn’t respond sooner — I actually found a life this wekend and vacationed for the Labor Day holiday…

OK, enuff talking about strategery in campaigns, and smart/organized campaigns, etc. I don’t know any of the 3 candidates personally (for the 18th CongDist race… so for outsiders like me, I can tell you that Shock’s “professional & strategic” campaign rings more hollow and is more offensive to me – as a voter. I’d much rather have a non-politician who was at least genuine in his/her campaign, than a professional politician like Shock, who is only interested in raising $$ and hob-knobbing with “important people” – too busy to come back home and debate his opponents face-to-face.

Instead, Shock sounds more like Tricky Dick Nixon (ahem! another non-corrupt GOP, ehh); Shock appears to be in this only so he can get to the next office level, then another. He does not seem to be in it for the people. Callahan & Schaefer do (yes A-ron – real people do make real mistakes sometimes… that’s why they want real people to represent them in Congress.

I have bad news for you, Alli… look at your history books: campaigns are NOT about strategery or professionalism — they’re about meeting the potential constituents, and learning their concerns so he/she can represent those people. I’ll take a non-professional politician for office ANYday, over a pro-pol. (Think Abraham Lincoln was professional??)

Aaron has been successful only at streching his 15-minutes into a 1/2 hour, but the clock is ticking.

Oh MJ… by the way, if Shock’s team is SOOOO organized & professional, whazzup with that CJ Ward guy they hired as Treasurer – sight unseen??
Uh oh… has corruption began seeping into TeamShock already???

By: Allison

Allison — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 20:54:31 +0000

Ginny,campaigns are suppose to be strategic…get with the program. Any campaign that isn’t shows no interest in winning. What comments did Schock make regarding career women? Where can I find his quotes on that subject?

Doesn’t the federation of teachers typically endorse democrats? If so, Colleen touting it as important counters with her own assessment of the farm bureau’s endorsement as politics as usual.

By: 11Bravo

11Bravo — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 07:10:24 +0000

Once again not a Schock fan, but I do feel the necessity to point out errors, especially when one candidate is making claims of another. First its Marshall-Putnam, not Putnam-Marshall. Second, Schock already met with the MP Farm Bureau I believe more than once.

Besides, Marshall County going for anyone other than a Republican would be like Obama losing in Chicago…

By: Sheldon Schafer

Sheldon Schafer — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 05:38:17 +0000

There’s certainly more going on here that is being revealed by the Farm Bureau. It must be politics as usual (shudder).
WCBU, the PJStar, WEEK and WMBD all reported that the Farm Bureau claimed to have interviewed ALL candidates extensively, yet I didn’t even receive a phone call.
Although they may not acknowledge me now, at the Putnam_Marshall Farm Bureau booth at that fair, Ms. Callahan and I were the only ones who answered their questionnaires, and our answers were posted for all to see. I distinctly remember Mr. Schock’s responses as they posted them too on a large 2′x3′ posters in the exhibit hall for everyone to see. His responses to the Farm Bureau Questions were “no response”, “no response”, “no response”. How someone can flaunt their questions, and then have them come back to say that ALL of us were interviewed extensively is more than curious.
I also noticed that both Ms. Callahan and Mr. Schock were absent from the USDA’s full day Biofuels seminar in July. Talking with the individual researchers of next-generation crops, the USDA staff from Washington, and visiting the research labs was invaluable. It’s amazing what we have to look forward to if we don’t get stuck on corn-based ethanol. Perhaps they know all there is to know about Net Energy Yields, fermentation efficiencies and problems and promise of celluosic ethanol? I certainly intend to find out in the debates.

By: diane vespa

diane vespa — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 18:48:45 +0000

Because his task is to engage the people of Illinois, not Colleen Callahan.

By: Ginny Martinez

Ginny Martinez — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 18:37:48 +0000

MJ… Well HOO-RAY for the “smart” campaigners at Aaron’s house. I’m sure Callahan would gladly relinquish that branding, since she is not a professional politician, and she is NOT simply running for this office until he thinks he can ladder-climb all the way to the Bush-soiled White House. Instead, Colleen Callahan is a successful, career agri-business woman (based on past remarks by Aaron, I’m sure he has a problem with the entire concept of “a sucessful career woman” anyway!!).

Callahan, most likely, is far less concerned with strategic timing of publicity stunts, than she is with doing the right thing – for the right reasons.

Oh yeah, and why did Boy Wonder’s voice robot fail to mention the debates that his komrade dropped-out of, on short notice??

Secondly, if A-ron is so wise, why does he continue to dodge Schaefer & Callahan from having a true DEBATE on the issues?? If he’s that “smart”, wouldn’t he be able to stand on a stage with his oppenents and share his ’smartness’? In fact, why did his website NOT have these listed before? And mention the debates he ran away from, too?

This could all be settled if he would just show his face on-stage -in a REAL debate of issues- not just a show-n-tell glad-handing day when the other candidates happen to be in the same room with him and a handful of voters. (Shearer should check the definition of “DEBATE” before claiming that Aaron has committed to 10 or 12 or 14 (if you count the one’s he “committed to” and then backed-out), and why can’t the taxpayer/voters of Shocks own state district get an answer as to his whereabouts when he dropped-out of the previously scheduled debates? What is he running from (or to)??

Hey, of course the Farm Bureau endorsement matters, but I interact with farmers everyday (dozens each week), and the comments I’m hearing sure make it sound like the FB endorsement does NOT reflect the views of “Joe Farmer”.

Likewise, one might wonder why the Teachers endorsed Ms Callahan… afterall, wasn’t Aaron the ‘educator’ (sorta like Arnold’s ‘terminator’)?? The IL teachers had endorsed him previously, so why not this time??? Could it be due to the troubles that befell those Peoria schools after he pushed to hire that Rooster person as super??

So really, why was he at a fundraiser in LA? And how is that going to benefit we farmers in mid-IL ?

C’mon MJ, Lee & vespa… if he’s so righteous and ’smart’, why won’t he just show-up for a debate???

Bless ya’all.

By: C. J. Summers

C. J. Summers — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 18:02:51 +0000

I have to agree that CC losing this endorsement is devastating to her campaign.

By: mj

mj — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:57:02 +0000

Elaine, Colleen WAS a journalist before she was a PR flak, including FOR the “agri-business” who now opposes her. I’m not saying her “speaking truth to power” isn’t noble, but politically, this endorsement is devastating to her political rationale. And since when is the farm bureau the PR arm of ADM or ConAgra or some other agri-biz concern. Its activators ARE farmers, now simply employees of the mega businesses. Most voters WON’T reveiw in detail her policy decisions, they’ll get the mailer from the organizations most closely allied with them, factor in their personal impressions and whatever personal contact they get. And if “special interest” endorsements don’t matter, then why did her campaign tout her IFT endorsement? Elaine, as a PR flak for your friend and colleague, you are doing a good job in dismissing the impact of this endorsement. As a journalist, your post is not up to your ususal standards. As a lowly political observer, not actively involved in Schock campaign, even I can hear the fat lady warming up.

By: Elaine Hopkins

Elaine Hopkins — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:37:36 +0000

A fatal dagger? Hardly. If you eat, you might think again about this endorsement.

Callahan is a journalist, not a PR flack for the agriculture business. In that role as a truth teller she may have offended the farm establishment by telling the truth instead of using their spin. Is it payback time?

Voters should judge her on policy issues, and not whether she has curried favor with agri-business.

Members of Congress should represent the public interest, not special interests.

By: mj

mj — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:16:18 +0000

Several thoughts and responses:
“Why did he wait 3 weeks to publicize the endorsement?” Because smart campaigns roll out information in a strategic way, when it will have the most impact, e.g. during the conventions when people’s minds begin to turn to politics.

“It must have been only the board of directors who made the vote.” No, the Farm Bureau is one of the most archane endorsement processes. It requires approval by “activators” in each county farm bureau, meaning that it perhaps the most grassroots endorsement int he state. Far more than the IFT endorsement which is often voted on by the executive board of the State IFT after “consultation” with the locals.

“The endorsement was all partisan.” So apparently Dave Koehler and Mike Smith are recent GOP converts? Laughable! I think you could fairly criticize the farm bureau as simply backing the winner, lots of groups side with candidates they perceive are a lock if their answers are good enough. Or we take their answers at face value and assume AS did his homework and was knowledgable about farm issues. But any way you slice it, this endorsement is nothing short of a dagger into Colleen’s political heart. It would be like Jim McConnaghey NOT receiving a Chamber endorsement.