"Sheyman let the gathering know Congress currently has a nine percent approval rating questioning why voters would want to choose a representative who was currently part of government."

Oops! Guess he just lost Jan Schakowsky's support.

This Daily Herald endorsement is odd because another perspective might be he can't keep a job.

http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20120221/discuss/702219997/

I'd rather see Sheyman run against Dold--it would be like Dan Seals running again and Dold would be sure to win. Of course there are those in BG who would vote for him because of the BG and Jewel connection among other things.

Still, Jon, there are those who actually think Sheyman is a serious candidate. Personally, I think it's like voting for someone who's still wet behind the ears.

Sheyman IS a serious candidate. Really.
Dold, on the other hand? I am not taking ANYTHING he says seriously again.
He told us he was pro-choice. Did not vote that way.
He told us he was a Friend of the Environment. Did not vote that way.
He told us he was a staunch supporter of Israel. But so is the entire House and Senate, so who cares?

Being curious by nature, I attended Saturday's forum in Deerfield. I'd rank performances 1. Sheyman. 2. Tree. 3. Schneider. 4. Bavda. Yes, Sheyman is that good. I was astounded. He comes across prepared, articulate, enthusiastic. He appears as older than he is, and far more mature than I expected for his age. Yes he's too far left, his only weakness is the off-target penchant for slamming Schneider for his contributions to Republicans, and he got hammered on that. It should teach him a lesson.

Sheyman is really good at what he is doing. Schneider is terrible. First he doesn't speak clearly. Sheyman and Tree were able to clearly articulate their positions. Schneider is a mumbler who speaks in platitudes, and he just can't seem to project content, enthusiasm, authenticity, or leadership together in one electable package. He's just dull, all around. I'll stick with my earlier statements - he gives the impression his job record is sketchy because part of his demeanor projects that if I were his boss, I'd eventually be firing him so why hire him in the first place?.

Sheyman is an extremist, but I sensed he possesses intangible ingredients that his opponents don't have; more ambition, preparedness, and enthusiasm. A better manager. He's a well-schooled and already a very skilled politician with far more experience in living and dealing with 2012 issues than his opponents.

It's hard envisioning Schneider or Tree doing well against dolt. They lack passion. Not so Sheyman.

Maybe the reason Sheyman's direct mail piece is so good is he may have help from his former employer--MoveOn.org. They probably have excellent marketing people since so many people believe the information they put out.

In a Mitt Romney-like moment in addressing the education challenges facing our children and grandchildren, Brad offered up the example of the "tough challenges" his son is facing with curriculum challenges in his first semester at "an Eastern University", and how Brad is making a difference in his son's life by encouraging him not to give up. What is so extraordinary about that Brad?

Daniel10987 said: "How articulate someone speaks (yes I will admit Ilya spoke better; after all, he was one of the best debaters in the state a few years back when he was in high school) is absolutely no measure of how good of a candidate they are, nor is it a measure of how good their policy is. Voting for Ilya who you admit is an extremist is voting based on appearance, not content."

Abigail says: A lot of people posting here already voted for one extremist who is articulate and look where it got us. Do we really need another one?

Nightcrawler, I will not vote for Obama. No way, no how.

So, yes, I will be voting GOP, but I haven't decided which candidate yet. No matter which one I choose, ANYONE is better than Obama.

Yes, John, right along there with Obama's "57 states."

Sully
6:21 am on Monday, February 27, 2012

Just as you believe everything you hear on Fox, despite the numerous times they've been documented giving false information, and presented nothing but the republican party's propaganda and talking points.

Abigail says: Sully, if you are going to make a statement like that--I want to see proof. Oh, wait, there isn't any, is there!

Sully
6:23 am on Monday, February 27, 2012

I'm interested in what you perceive to be extremist positions taken by Obama. Please, do tell. And i'm also interested in knowing if you think Santorum is extremist. Many republicans seem to think so and are scared of this guy winning the GOP nomination.

Abigail says: Sully, it has been documented that Barack Hussein Obama was the most liberal person in the senate; therefore, it's safe to assume he is also the most liberal president we've ever had. I know for certain he is the worst president in our generation.

As for Rick Santorum, I will not be voting for him in the primary because I am a Mitt Romney fan. If Newt hadn't imploded, I would vote for Newt. Santorum would be third on my list. HOWEVER, if Rick Santorum is the Republican nominee for president I will most definitely vote for him. I can't stand the thought of 4 more years of Obama.

Jon, the Democrat party has people like you everywhere--those that think if they make disparaging remarks about Republican candidates that the rest of us will forget about the vast failings of your candidate Barack Obama. Just like the comment made in 2008--"if you don't vote for Obama, you're a racist"--Democrats as a whole do not like Mitt. Why is that? Is it because he can turn this country's economy around, where your guy can't? Yes, I think that may be the reason. Mitt's record of success in business and government precedes him, whereas your guy only has experience making speeches, continually campaigning, and voting "present."

Also, Jon, please notice that I haven't resorted to calling Obama names (like you referred to Mitt Romney as a "ninny"). But that train has left the station--now I will stoop to your level of name-calling. I feel Obama is a bloody idiot because even when the Democrats had control of the House and the Senate, he still couldn't push through his far left agenda. Why is that? Could it be his own party wouldn't vote for the garbage he was trying to push on this country? But look at what your idiot HAS done to our country--worst recession in the history of our nation, unemployment the highest it's been in decades, record foreclosures and no end in sight no matter what CNN, CNBC, NBC, ABC, and the other Obama--favoring networks say. I can go on and on. But, no, none of this is Obama's fault--George W. Bush is still to blame.

Get over it, Jon, your guy owns the problems and has since the day he was elected. He does not deserve to be re-elected.

Now let's see if the rest of you Dems can grow a pair and vote for someone who can turn this country back into prosperity--because the guy YOU elected surely can't.

Oh, and I forgot MSNBC, how can I forget Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, etc.

Don't bother responding, Jon, I've made my point and I really don't think you or any of the rest of the Dems on this blog have anything to say that I care to hear. Wait, that almost sounds like something a Democrat would say!!

So many words, so little content. The question directed to you was:

"Can you say that Mitt is running a better campaign now than he did four years ago"?

We've read the other random drivel repeatedly. Answer the question.

Just or you, Abigail-

http://robwrite.hubpages.com/hub/Masters-of-Misinformation-Surveys-Skewer-Fox-News-for-Inaccurate-Reporting

http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2011/11/21/fairleigh_dickinson_publicmind_poll_shows_fox_news_viewers_less_informed_on_major_news_stories.html

http://mediamatters.org/research/200911190043

http://www.mediaite.com/online/fox-news-crowd-footage-goes-rogue-again/

http://restoretheconstitution.wordpress.com/2011/02/17/in-case-you-havent-seen-it-fox-news-busted-for-false-story-on-cpac-crowds-reaction-to-ron-pauls-straw-poll-victory/

http://blogcritics.org/politics/article/fox-news-again-uses-false-footage/

http://www.newshounds.us/2008/04

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fox_News

http://mediamatters.org/research/200806060010

/25/hume_smears_pelosi_but_transcript_is_incomplete.php

http://www.zimbio.com/Megyn+Kelly/articles/X9L8rGgpMbF/CLASSIC+Fox+News+Spins+False+Story+Then+Spins

So many examples to cite, but so little time...

Have politics sparked this much hostility in our country since the Civil War or is it just something that I haven't paid attention to? When did it get to the point that the party lines drawn had to equal a verbal civil war? People always talk about their party being the only good thing for the country, but when able to look objectively both parties can and do bring good things to the nation. There is a reason that through history you see the party in office change every so often. The independents sway on what the nation may need at the time. Do people honestly believe that the opposing party president is trying to destroy America or are they moving forward but just in a way you don't agree with? I wasn't a fan of Bush, but I accepted that a little over half the nation thought he was at least good enough. People forget that a majority doesn't equal the whole nation. The first W. election, depending on you ask, was not even won in the popular vote by Bush. Almost 51 million people had to live with someone they didn't want in office. And they came out the other side ok. Fox news may report one side of an issue and MSNBC the other....meeting in the middle shouldn't be this hard.

Tony is right. People in general are fed up with Obama's attempts to turn our country into a welfare state and his feeble attempts to make the Republicans out to be the bad guy. Liberals want the entire country dependent on the government--but, who's going to pay for all of this? The Democrats? Not bloody likely.

Brian, you have to admit that right now our system has more people moving to the minus side than it does people moving to the plus side and it doesn't appear that our president is doing much to help the situation. Am I demonizing the Democrats? You betcha, and the reason for that is clear--Democrats seem to enjoy having more people in their back pocket due to government handouts and consistently point at the Republicans as being the bad guys who want to take that away. Republicans DON'T want to take away government help for people who need it, but we (Republicans) don't want people using food stamps and welfare as a way of life. Welfare was meant as a helping hand until people can get back on their feet--not as a way of life.

Our economy is in the toilet and the man in charge (Obama) isn't doing much to get it going again. I guess that $528 million he threw away by giving it to Solyndra, which ultimately went bankrupt, could really go a long way to help people, couldn't it? And didn't I read recently there's another green energy company having financial problems and they also received Obama money? Maybe he should quit trying to save the world with green energy and concentrate on getting people back to work with PERMANENT jobs and not the temporary ones his initiatives turned out.

OldDanFan…. You obviously didn’t notice that I did not use the word Republican or Bush in my comments. Despite what liberals believe, GWB was not a true conservative in my eyes. That being said, once again you use simplistic economic correlations that make no sense. You are making a correlation of tax rates and their effect during different economic circumstances. Regardless of who you believe caused this recession, Clinton did not have this bad of economy or jobless rate when he was proposing his tax rates (thanks to Reagan). There is no way Clinton would have been able to raise taxes with a real unemployment rate of around 10% that we have today. Apples to oranges.

We are really in a sad state if people like you believe that other citizens keeping their own money is the cause for an economic recession. You also failed to mention 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina. Despite those tragedies, the unemployment rate never really went above 6.3% from 2002 through 2008. Perhaps some of that stability was people keeping their own money (i.e bush tax cuts)?
At any rate, maybe you are right. We need more top-down-authoritative policies, higher taxes, more regulations. That will solve all of our problems and give us much more liberty. (sarcasm implied).