An interesting post on candidate Danny Malouf’s campaign Facebook page was posted earlier on Monday, citing the following:
“How important is transparency from your congressional candidates? It appears as though only one other candidate in the 14th District is transparent enough to put much of their platform in writing. And no one is willing to answer some of these tough questions (pictured), qualifying their commitment to supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States.
“If this is the level of transparency as candidates, we know what to expect if they become elected representatives.
Danny Malouf Facebook Post 10/14/19
“While a feel good video, a slew of photo opportunities, and safe talking points are nice and secure, politics is about policy. There’s a lot of talk but nobody’s really saying much.
“So, what are they waiting for?”
.
The post itself raised a point that only one of the other candidates in the 14th district had significant content on their campaign website. Malouf’s post received a response asking him to name the competitor Malouf was talking about. Here is Malouf’s response, which he posted Monday night:
“While I don’t believe anyone else has answered these tough questions, Jim Marter appears to be the only other candidate with actual content on his webpage.
Danny Malouf Facebook response 10/14/19
“I think it’s still safe to say I’m the only Constitutional option.”
.
Here is the grid/picture of “tough questions” Malouf included with the Facebook post to prove his point. It is one he first started using in the summer. It does not include Anthony Catella or Catalina Lauf, but does include Sue Rezin:
Given Malouf’s Facebook response was time-stamped for early Monday evening, Marter’s campaign website was checked to see if he had published something new in platform positions or policy/position papers. Nothing new there, except the same talking-points, short-answer platitudes and bromides.
Much like Malouf’s answers too, no position papers citing current laws or legislation, just abstracts applying a constitutional principle, many times unstated, but no substance.
COMMENTARY: Going back to Malouf’s quotes:
“…politics is about policy. There’s a lot of talk but nobody’s really saying much.
Danny Malouf, 10/14/19
“So, what are they waiting for?”
.
Malouf is 100% right about policy, and McHenry County Blog has been saying the same about all of the candidates, including Malouf and Marter, for quite some time now.
None of the 14th district candidates at this point have detailed, well-researched position papers on current laws, legislation and proposals they would support on the major issues.
Jim Oberweis and Ted Gradel have talking-points issue statements on their campaign websites, though no position statement papers. Anthony Catella has nothing on his website, except his introductory campaign video link.
Sue Rezin and Catalina Lauf do not have detailed policy positions on their websites, but both have said they’d be launching their detailed platforms during October. Rezin said this when her campaign launched on July 9, and Lauf stated last week in a podcast.
And a reminder, Malouf raised the least amount of money in the 3rd quarter at $489. Even Catella raised nearly $100 more. If Malouf is thinking about leaving the race given his fundraising, looks like Marter would be the recipient of his support, provided Marter stays in the race if his fundraising is not competitive.
Put another way, nobody is quite literally buying Malouf’s statement he has said the most. Indeed, based on the level of support through campaign contributions, it’s quite the opposite and that assessment is the easiest to believe.
We’ll know the numbers by tonight for all of the candidates, given today is the deadline for filing 3rd quarter reports to the FEC. We’ll see which candidates donors are literally buying into and who they are not.
We’re not here to tickle ears, just to tell the truth.
Hmmmm. Malouf seems to be OK after all.
I like his foreign policy.
But where is he on abortion?
Seems like his 2nd amend. stuff would apply there too, but doesn’t.
—and his efforts at targeting the private banking cartel known as the Federal Reserve Crime Syndicate might insure his ‘liquidation.’
If this country needs anything, it’s more H R Professionals like this Malouf, getting us refunds from misbehaving vending machines in our break rooms.
Well done sir.
Not all answers have to be long.
I think if you say “cut budget by 19 percent” or “repeal the patriot act” those are more than “bromides.”
Something can be specific and still succinct, and some of Danny’s answers are that way.
They’re all (the candidates) lacking in details but some are more lacking than others.
Last I checked, Lauf’s page had nothing.
Catella’s page has nothing.
Gradel’s page doesn’t have much, nor does Oberweis’s.
Marter lists many issues but his answers are short, often not specific, and often aimed at a very small sub-topic within the issue.
Still, Marter is probably doing a better job on the campaign trail and on his website to educate voters on what his views are than most of his opponents.
Correcting, agreed to a partial extent. I did see the references you mentioned as well as the reference to the flat tax Malouf stated, which will be the Part III of the series of articles on the “Beware of Analytics…” series.
I did cite all of the candidates, including Rezin, for not having detailed positions. If I’m putting too much weight to the “formal campaign launch” of the Rezin campaign said back in July for the month of October, we’ll soon see. Same for the Lauf podcast from last week about her platform issues being published this month.
Where I differ with your response, and in particular “…not all answers have to bee long.” Where I see all of the policy/position statements need to go is what all the 14th district candidates to be prepared for sharing that debate stage with Lauren Underwood next fall.
Let’s use taxes. All of the Republicans need to be ready to debate Underwood on her H.R. 1757, defend the Tax Cuts & Jobs Act of 2017, and completely destroy the lie the Left is trying to perpetrate, with the help of ProPublica, that tax cuts are bad for the middle class. If the 14th district Republicans do not agree with everything in TCJA, they need to say so and why, and propose how to change their perceived shortcoming.
Same for all the major issues.
Even in Jeanne Ives position paper, which I would grade a “B+”, the weakest part of her position on healthcare has to do with where Sean Casten really is on healthcare. In an interview last week, she talked succinctly on Casten’s public option stance. Her position paper infers Casten supports policies to lead to Medicare-for-All, to which Casten will say “I have not cosponsored Congresswoman Jayapal’s legislation”.
Ives’ position on health care needs slight refinement to be an “A” paper, in order to compete against Casten on healthcare on the debate stage.
But unlike Ives, who has a nearly-cleared field to the nomination, none of the 14th district candidates have that advantage. All of the candidates need to prove they will be ready for that eventual head-to-head debate with Underwood on the major issues, including Underwood’s voting record, to win the general.
Too many of the leading candidates are banking that the depressed Republican turnout of 2018 will not be repeated in 2020. That’s a dangerous assumption in a blue state in a presidential election year, especially with Durbin not seeing a credible Republican challenger.
The primary voters will vet to see which one is best prepared for fall of 2020, at least that is what I hope the Republican primary vetting will be about.
Danny Maloof has written in favor of anarchy online.
I too wonder if that means he is pro-abortion rights which is why that issue is not in his list of superficial platitudes on issues.
Does the same go for legal prostitution and hard drugs?
Malouf has failed on every level.
He most likely will not get enough signatures to qualify for the ballot because he has not generated any measurable support among voters.
He is also not able to find people who believe in him enough to contribute to his quixotic campaign.
To me it seems Malouf has failed and is getting ready to drop out and endorse Marter. However 0 + 0 = 0.
Nine weeks have passed since I asked Malouf a questions on his elimination of the department of energy and I still have not gotten an answer.
More about Danny’s platform can be found here: https://www.danny2020.com/issues
And here:
https://usconstitution.net/const.pdf
Sincerely,
Danny
Thanks Danny. So you are for legalizing heroin, crystal meth, LSD etc. You believe it is each individual’s right but you don’t get what that does to society and who pays for drug addicts medical care when they don’t earn anything. Who pays for their food and their needles? The answer is the government meaning taxpayers. I don’t want to pay their way. I don’t want to make it easy on them to drop out of society and live off everyone’s else’s hard work. I also don’t want someone who regularly uses pot or other drugs even if only when off work to be able to drive my kids on a school bus or be in charge of monitoring the gauges in a nuclear power plant. Their reaction times are slower. Yes, drug use affects other people’s rights.
But your 2020 issues statement leaves out your views on anarchy. With anarchy and no government, who would enforce any laws against abortion? Or in favor of law and order? Does anarchy in your opinion leave room for police and fire departments?
Danny
Your issue chart doesn’t convey your views on anarchy. Under your version of anarchy does that leave room for police and fire departments?
How would laws against abortion be enforced under anarchy? Your views seem to contradict themselves.
On drugs being a personal choice–the translation is you must believe heroin, crystal meth and LSD should be legal. I see a huge cost to society from that and hard working taxpayers paying for drug addicts free needles, health care and food. I don’t want someone who only smokes weed–even on their own time–to drive my kids to school on a school bus or monitor the gauges at a nuclear plant. Even when they are not on a new high their reaction times and mental processing is slower. They are freeloaders on the hard workers in society.
On trade, so you disagree with President Trump that we need tough measures to get China to live by fair trade? Wow. Screw American workers according your rigid theoretical ideology.
Your platitudes don’t work in the real world. No wonder you can’t find anyone to believe in you enough to give your campaign a few hundred dollars.
Hi Susan,
What I’m advocating for is Federalism and upholding the oath of office.
A member of Congress takes the following oath:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”
Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution highlights the powers of Congress. So, I would like to limit the scope of the Federal government to these limited powers, and per the tenth amendment, maintain the practice that “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
You seem to think there’s an epidemic of meth, heroin, and LSD use. You’re partly right. There is a slight opioid crisis that is FDA approved. Forty percent of opioid deaths are a result of legally prescribed opioids, approved by the federal government in coordination with big pharma. As the party of small government, I don’t think we should be supporting big government solutions.
Also, I don’t know if you think I support Federal taxpayer funded needle programs and other forms of welfare, but I don’t. Because it’s not authorized by the Constitution.
Perhaps you would like to talk further about some of this to better understand the position of a Constitutionalist such as myself.
And to close: what’s more conservative than the Constitution?
Sincerely,
Danny, a Constitutional Conservative
I’d rather have Anarchy than the Democrats running things.
MsTrumpion, last I looked at his website, Malouf said he believes life begins when the heartbeat starts.
Presumably, this means he’d be against abortion after 22 days (when the heart starts beating) or ~5 week mark (when medical equipment can actually detect the heartbeat), and allow for abortion before those times (although I don’t know whether he personally approves of it).
I’m very pro-life, but frankly this is a politically sensitive issue. I’d much rather have a candidate that believes life begins at 5 weeks versus life begins at birth (which seems to be the standard Democrat position nowadays).
Who knows…maybe not being an absolutist on the issue would actually result in more reform. I have to think (for my sake) that even a lot of Democrats think that unlimited abortion up to the moment of birth is wrong as a general rule. (I’m sure someone could think up some extremely unlikely scenario that accounts for the overwhelming minority of cases to try to “trap” me in my statement).
I like Malouf’s positions on policies. I’m a hybrid conservative Republican who leans libertarian on some issues (because I’m a fan of small government…for instance, I like avoiding other country’s disputes unless there is a substantial, preferably direct threat to the US).
I’m just worried about the “seriousness” of his campaign, namely the abysmal fundraising. I’m not aware of any polls this early, so my vote will possibly be strategic this primary once I know the front runners, but as of today Marter and Malouf are my top 2 just based on their positions.