Steve Verr
Besides attacking Township Supervisor Craig Adams’ Independent petitions on the basis that Adams is not an Independent, Republican opponent is saying that Adams has too few signatures.
In the third count of his objection, Verr points out that 355 valid petition signatures are required to obtain a position on the ballot.
Verr points out that Adams filed 391 names.
The Republican then lists
- four names of people who do not live in McHenry Township
- two who participated in the Republican Party Caucus
- four signatures which are illegible
- seventeen signatures of voters who are not registered at the address given on the petitions
- twenty-six signatures which do not match the voter signatures on file with the County Clerk
- six signatures which are invalid because the signers were not signed by “proper persons and are not genuine”
An entire sheet is also challenged because “the circulator failed to list her address.”
How old are these children?
Anyone taking donations for a couple binkies?
Both could use Grover pacifiers…
This is a yet another case of Mr. Verr attempting to be the only one on the ballot.
Why won’t he just run in the General election and meet his fate?
Why?
Because he cannot win.
He figures if he challenges Mr. Adams and anyone else from running including the Democratic side (which he also challenged) he can slide right in based on objections and take a position unopposed.
But, gee, isn’t that the complaint that our friends Mr. Verr and Mr. Rooney stated from the beginning?
Folks that were appointed?
Mr. Verr forgets, you cannot stop a write in candidate.
The Republican story to the voters goes something like this; We went to Caucus with a weighted vote (we never told you), then challenged all the signatures (maybe even yours), then forced folks to become a write in candidates.
Seems pretty transparent to me.
I want to walk door to door with Mr. Verr to see the good people of McHenry Township’s reaction to this mess.
How embarrassed the Republican Party must be?
Or what’s left of it.
Pun intended.
This is politics.
Fundamentally politics is a game with rules.
If one cannot follow the rules then you lose.
If one cannot use every rule to self advantage you have a high percentage chance of loss.
If one can shape the rules to personal advantage then you have a 40 year dictatorship.
Anyone who did not use every single tool available to win is a fool and deserving of the end they earn.
The other side is most local Election Boards err on the side of elections choosing winners rather than the rules save for gross negligence.
This said, anyone who cannot negotiate the first steps of being elected will be railroaded hard if they are elected.
Look at these first baby steps as a guard against fools and the vastly underprepared.
Adams must see some Flux in the system, rather than follow the rules.
To many rules in this country, isn’t that a Republican talking point?
Not so odd is Republican’s seem to want more rules, their rules, not so much fewer rules.
Good comment by Priest.
Nob, call me interested in your comment.
Please expand. How are rules a partisan issue?
When playing Candyland or Monopoly did you see the rules as partisan or did you learn them and play the game?
Your comments usually serve a purpose so please explain how a partisan group, specifically Republicans (since you brought them in), has any advantage over another group under the Election Rules?
Excellent comment by Priest.
Rules are Rules and there must be ethics added to the mix.
Sounds like Mr. Adams has friends that are cherry picking on who runs in McHenry County, they will do it by “hook or crook”.
Craig Adams’ side of the Republican Party in McHenry Township lost control three years ago.
Nob.
You disappoint.
Do not make statements you cannot or will not back up.
It diminishes you and you have some salient points occasionally.
Accusing Republicans of wanting more or less rules for any reason is just stupid.
Illinois is run by one Democrat who is a master of shaping and manipulating rules to the point he is the undisputed dictator without equal or competition.
All humans and their variant groupings have rules.
Every… Single… One… More.
Less.
Immaterial.
It is merely an ability to accept or not accept those rules which allows the illusion of civility.
If you cannot live under the current Election Rules then opt out or try to change them.
Making ignorant comments whining about how you’re booty hurt over the rules and then blaming Republicans is just beneath you.
Priest, I don’t sit on my computer every night waiting to type on this blog, relax a tad.
One example is the Fed ethic board that the Rep are trying to get rid of.
The Rep believe it is not fair and balanced since it was more or a Dem partisan thingy.
Pete Roskam is part of that deal after being slapped for a trip to Taiwan.
More later, I have to go.
Priest, isn’t it a Republican talking point of having less gov in our lives?
Answer of course is yes, which then would mean fewer rules and regulations for us to deal with.
So for these Republican’s to use rules and regulations written by and for the two partisan parties to freeze somebody else out from running for election as a independent is disingenuous IMO.
If I claim to be Rep or Dem, then I don’t like the process of that party I claimed to represent, why should election laws/rules prevent me from running as a independent?
The law/rules are partisan, to protect the partisan parties that write the rules.
As I recall, Trump said he would run as a independent if the Old boss Republicans made it difficult for him to run in the primaries.
So when I see nit picking of rules, rules written to protect the two partisan parties and mostly incumbents, in this case I see Republicans being disingenuous.
First new Story was about Randy Hultgren messing with the rules, partisan rules in fact.
While I also consider politics a game, the winners often are the ones breaking most of the rules, not following them.
Ya know rules are fine, we need them, but they are often over the top, as in this case.
I’ll help you out Nob as your thoughts as written seem to be muddled by your campaign as an independent.
You enjoyed the advantages of a Party when it suited you and now have decided to forge your own path because you’re disgruntled.
I appreciate the sentiment but your arguments are all over the place thereby clouding the issue badly.
You made, and continue to make, the assertion Republicans are somehow desirous of, by your statements, alternatively more and less rules.
Without making up your mind on this issue you then assert Partys and partisan politics are somehow rigged against you as an independent thereby being disingenuous.
I’ll not ask how this may be true as it doesn’t matter to the foundation of your question.
Neither will your rabbit trails be chased as it pertains to current issues because all this serves is to confuse your question.
The foundations of your commentary are you’re booty hurt over whatever you see as unfair to you specifically within the Republican Party and you are just now in your life wanting to question why the two party system has such sway over the political process while trying to make the reasons specific to one party.
First. You’re whining and its unbecoming to who you have been.
Stop it.
The Republican Party did nothing more to you than what you enjoyed for years as a rules following member.
Second, because your ideas have failed within the confines of the local party leadership and you can’t garner support you are wanting to take your ball and pout rather than fight.
Then you specifically want to denigrate an entire political system claiming ignorance showing individual weakness rather than licking your wounds and fighting back within your claimed party of years.
The good news is you personally can recover.
Sandra is weak as a leader and can be ousted.
This is one path.
Another path is to join another Party.
Cal has been a Libertarian for years.
He can testify to the struggles of a third Party path.
Another path is to keep whining about how unfair your Party has been to you and see where that gets you.
There certainly are many paths between but you need clarity of vision rather than the clouded view of hating the circumstance you find yourself in or you’re headed for political irrelevance.
Being “independent ” is a weak protest with no possible path to victory without visionary leadership.
This is why it is harder as an “independent “.
The political world doesn’t need the chaos of thousands of booty hurt non rules understanding/following weak sticks creating chaos/expense for every election authority.
Pick a path.
Understand what it takes to win on your path.
Pursue victory.
Or quit.
We have enough ignorant whiners in the world and need no more.
Be the leader you have been in this comment room. We’re watching and pulling for the leaders.
Wow, impressive crock.
Close but no banana.
I would admit I over used independent as the better word would of been a third party candidate, sorry.
I’m kind of Libertarian, at least I voted that way the last election.
I have suggested a few good changes that would help.
Even a few of the local politician’s have pickup up on one of them.
I’m trying to lead, but most of my suggestions aren’t even commented on, like no one cares really.
Life goes on, and shifting gears can occur when the moment IMO is right.
When the Republican party put forth a BBA, and stops being disingenuous, I’ll consider looking that way again.
If I miss that, go ahead and point it out pal.
LOL
Let’s talk more, you’re dam entertaining.
You have not once addressed any of the subjects you brought up.
You.
No one else.
You brought up Republicans.
No one else.
You said they wanted both more and less rules.
No one else.
You said the Party’s, specifically Republicans, are disingenuous.
No one else.
When asked to explain yourself you ramble to incoherence.
When explanation is offered for you the response is another incoherent one.
Then you say you need strokes for your comments.
What happened to you?
Your Rant is a good one.
Your responses usually have intelligence.
Are you so without self esteem or self assurance other commenters need to compliment you each time for you to feel relevant?
Leaders have vision and pursue that vision with a single minded pursuit without regard for detractors or sycophants.
You, Nob, fail every measure of a leadership test.
Without any response offering explaination of your own wandering and incoherent statements no conclusion may be reached as to the merits of any case you hope to forward.
Join Steve’s new group.
Join Paul’s new party.
Help Cal with his Blog.
Do something to help you grow as a person and learn politics.
Trying to edify or help you here hasn’t worked and I am truly disappointed in you for this.
Good luck.
And the “King” has spoken!
It’s always good to know there are people more judgmental from ignorance than I am.
Let me know when chest waders is needed, Friend.
I’m with you, Nob.
Pretentious comes to mind.
Wow.
Monsieur Verr is correct.
After a review of the statutes and judicial decisions involved, it is obvious to the most casual observer that party caucuses may set their own rules.
The fictitious idea that “one man one vote” applies to private party caucuses is completely wrong and not supported in the law, it only applies to actual elections under the auspices of the State of Illinois, not Republican Party politics.
Craig Adams is a relic of party politics and gerrymandering who seeks a continual salary off the tit of the Township.
Wake up fellow countrymen!
You have and are being taken advantage of!
Adams is a BIG FAT PIG at the township trough ….. he is a phony and crooked.
Why was he canned by Pioneer Center?
Go ask him!!!
I know the whole sordid story.
It would make one puke!