GREAT LIST OF CANDIDATES. Thank all of you for running.

In Algonquin Township, something Funk-y stinks with Sandberg

Somewhere along the line, the narrative you were told about the politics in Algonquin Township began to fall apart (if you paid attention).

Part of the narrative of this election is that Sandberg is the Gasser backed candidate, but Funk just trashed Gasser in a statement to the League of Women Voters making it sound like most of the township’s problems were due to Gasser, not Miller.

I’m going to now rattle off a bunch of questions for voters and readers to think about.

Does Sandberg owe anything to Gasser?

Isn’t the narrative that Sandberg owes her political career to Gasser?

Does she feel disloyal when she supports Funk who trashes Gasser?

Do voters think Sandberg might be disloyal to them?

Or is Sandberg just speaking her ‘conscience’ when she supports Funk who trashes Gasser?

Does Gasser believe Funk is the right choice for this position even though Funk does not sound like a fan of Gasser?

What did Gasser say about Funk and about the township abolition question in general?

Remember that it is because of Funk that voters will not get a referendum on their township.

How does that, a very status quo and establishmentarian action, jive with Gasser’s image as a reformer and a firebrand politician?

How do voters grapple with these questions, possible contradictions of political alliances?

Will anybody answer?

The last time I posed questions/concerns like this, the commenter called I’m outta here (who is a Sandberg sycophant) tried to deceive about the topic in general claiming Sandberg has not endorsed Funk.

It seemed obvious to me at the time that Sandberg was supporting Funk and I thoroughly explained why (that was even before I read Funk’s statement to LWV).

Her previous literature mentioned supporting Randy Funk and I’m outta here still denied it. Now we have more literature that supports my previous comments.

Or is Sandberg not even supported by Gasser in the first place?

(That is not my understanding of the situation, that is not the narrative I have heard.)

I just can’t wrap my head around what I think Gasser (and by proxy Sandberg) represents and what Funk represents being brought under the same group and Sandberg playing footsie-wootsie with the two starkly different politicians.

Or are Funk and Gasser not so different?

Is Sandberg worthy of being the so-called successor of Gasser?

How similar are they?

Or was that narrative just never accurate to begin with?

Why was it told then?

Who told it?

(Again, that is not my understanding. My understanding is that Sandberg and Gasser are close.)

Does Gasser feel betrayed by Sandberg, by her supporting Funk who trashes Gasser?

Then people start to wonder amidst all this crazy stuff, does Gasser care?

What does he think about all this?

Is there something in it for him?

Was there a dirty deal?

Is it inconsequential because he’s leaving public office and perhaps Illinois, and maybe he is just apathetic?

These are things I would think about if I lived in Algonquin Township.

But I live in a place that is not full of scandals.

At least not right now.

So I don’t need to worry about these things at all…

——————————————————————

The current political drama in Algonquin Township reminds me of this one time when a bunch of people who had nothing in common politically decided to run on a slate based on purely selfish interests.

1. They were friends. That personal bias to favor friends cost them having a cohesive message and the government was worse off for it. It was not so much a check and balance but just incompetence and lack of vision.

2. They thought the slate would increase their personal chance of winning, and they wanted to have a nice resume.

3. They thought government was cool and that it would help them get babes. They never thought to ask why the babes did not want them in the first place, but the babes wanted other men who did not have the government titles.

As you can see, the consistency of their politics did not matter.

They had selfish ulterior motives.

Is there an ulterior motive for the Sandberg-Funk alliance?

Is Funk instrumental to Sandberg because he helped maintain the status quo in the township, and Sandberg benefits from this by being a powerful person in the next administration, and Sandberg’s success benefits Funk by netting him some Gasser/Sandberg voters?
———————————————————–

What is it that unites Funk and Sandberg given Sandberg’s association with Gasser and Funk disliking Gasser (at least this is the narrative we have been told)?

Is it the case that Sandberg thinks Funk is simply the least bad person running for that position?

That would not be an exciting answer but at least it would explain something.

What is the explanation now?

There is none.

It’s silence with rare intermittent obfuscation, evasion, and denial from a small number of Sandberg sycophants. 
———————————————–

It doesn’t make any sense and nobody has an explanation.

Part of me feels bad for not helping you collect signatures to get your crappy township abolished, Cal, but part of me is really happy because now you people in Algonquin Township can’t brush off your bills on to the rest of the county to absorb.

You people in Algonquin Township, of all people, deserve that the least out of any people.

Maybe I should be a Funk supporter after all.

If I did, it would only be out of spite.

I still have mixed feelings.

I resent Randy Funk for stripping voters of their right to choose their own governmen

On the other hand, you guys did a piss poor job of getting signatures.

McHenry County Libertarians got way more signatures than you guys did.

Some movement.

Some uprising.

Now Sandberg, the successor of Tea Party Gasser, endorses Funk who reuses to let voters have a say in their own government LMAO

At a certain point I just have to laugh at you.

All of McHenry County is laughing at you.

Congratulations.

I’m voting for Randy Funk…

Funk is indeed a skunk.

He likes to pass gas a lot too and pretends nothing happened.