and his Democratic challenger in the Nov. 6 election, , spent the weekend meeting voters knowing the hardest part of their campaign lies ahead.
They already realize the campaign will be one of the most closely contested, watched and expensive in the country. They also understand in addition to the money they raise much will be spent by their national parties and potentially even more may come from outside groups exempt from legal spending limits.
Schneider had to combat the efforts of left leaning groups like during his primary campaign against three other candidates. The groups flooded 10th District mailboxes with advertising criticizing some of Schneider’s political donations.
“The primary showed us how the district will react to outside influences,” Schneider said Saturday at the opening of his Northbrook Campaign office. “The positive message will make the difference. I’m learning to live in a fish bowl. This will keep me focused.”
Dold recognizes there is nothing he can do about any money that may be spent on the race by special interest groups free from the donation limits that bind him and Schneider. He intends to focus on his record since starting his term in January, 2011.
“We have no control over that,” Dold said of the outside groups while greeting people at the Chicago Jewish Festival Sunday in Morton Grove. “What we can do is focus on what we have been doing the past 17 months, on the things that can be done for the people.”
Dold, who stressed his centrist, bipartisan approach to governance, said people were asking him questions about jobs, the economy and student loans. Moments later, Myrna Milstein of Buffalo Grove and her son, Mike Milstein, walked up to Dold.
“What’s important to us are student loans,” Myrna Milstein said. She and her son wore stickers supporting the reelection of President Barack Obama. “We want them (the interest rates) to stay low. I have two kids in college.”
Dold agrees. “We want to keep student loan interest rates low,” he said. “We passed it out of the House and it’s in the Senate.” The bill passed the lower chamber with a bipartisan majority, according to Dold.
The paths of Schneider and Dold nearly crossed Sunday at the Chicago Jewish Festival. They both had booths staffed with people all day.
Dold, who was at an event in Lake Villa Saturday, was at the Festival in the morning before attending a meet and greet in Glencoe later in the day. Schneider, who also had a full day weekend of campaigning, got to Morton Grove in the afternoon.
“I wanted to be there for the tribute to Debbie Friedman,” Schneider said. “We all grew up with Debbie Friedman’s songs.”
Friedman, who died at 59 17 months ago, is responsible for much of the music played and sung in Jewish liturgy today, according to Nancy Landsman. Landsman, who was at the Festival, is the cantor at Glencoe’s Congregation Am Shalom. “I studied with her, she taught me Hebrew,” Landsman said.
Looking foward to no more insults and answers to my questions.
You need to look at Dold's votes and positions as a whole, and not piece-meal. The same would be true with Schneider. I could easily claim that Schneider dances with far left winger Congresswoman Schakowsky as proof that Schneider is a mere clone of her. Those types of tactics are easy to use, but fail to advance any intelligent political debates. I could easily grab GOP talking points and portray Schneider in a way that Schneider is not. That too is the easy way out. Hope I have clarified things for you as to how I stand and why I post my comments the way I do.
Why then the double standard?
Often "no" is the best answer!
Let me see if I have your logic correct: 1. Dold can never vote for revenue increases in a “real bill” because he signed the Norquist pledge and Dold can never compromise on this position. 2. Dold voted for Cooper-La Tourette which included $1 trillion in new tax revenue. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2chambers/post/bipartisan-plan-to-cut-deficits-gets-meager-support-in-house/2012/03/28/gIQAH9JhhS_blog.html 3. Therefore Cooper-La Tourette cannot be a “real bill” and Dold didn’t compromise or violate his Norquist pledge. QED Would Barack Obama make an argument like this? Of course not. There are better ways of attacking Dold or making your point that Schneider will be more fiscally responsible than Dold. The argument that Dold will never break his Norquist pledge is intellectually dishonest and comes across as partisan rather than persuasive – which I’m sure isn’t your intent.
You might suggest that Schneider is also committed to “match[ing] expenditures to revenues over time to reduce and ultimately eliminate deficits in our generation, so that our children’s generation can begin to pay down our debt and have a future of hope and promise that is our American tradition.” http://schneiderforcongress.com/issues/fiscal-reform/ You might argue that Schneider will more equitably distribute the cost of reducing our deficits over time than Dold will – letting those who are better off carry more of the responsibility for resolving our nation’s fiscal crisis. You might argue – like the Democratic leaders in Congress – that Schneider knows that we need to spend now (to get the economy going again and to invest for the future) while at the same time developing a plan for long-run deficit reduction and entitlement reform.
My point about Mr. Dold signing the pledge has to do with his appeal to the Tea Party the first time around and if he has really had a change of heart, stop living a lie and renounce the pledge. He can't have it both ways. The party of the future or not, Mr. Dold?
As for Mr. Schneider, I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt as he is new to politics. That said, he has very detailed opinions on issues like gun control that he has thought a lot about (http://schneiderforcongress.com/issues/gun-control/). Where is the detailed opinion on our fiscal status? Doesn’t that topic deserve some thought and an opinion? You and I both know he has opinions on this subject – he, like Dold, isn’t entirely candid for political reasons. With Dold, I know he can vote for a budget compromise because he has. With Schneider, I don’t know if he will be an independent Democrat or a feckless follower of Schakowsky et al.
I know no one wants to really address the decline in our standards of living the past four years, particularly amongst those who fall below middle class standards and the middle class, but let's all get real here. President "everything is fine" Obama is seriously out of touch! This nation has a serious problem and mealy mouth proposals to "tax the 1%" are not going to fix them. All governments, federal, state and local continue to nibble around the edges when it comes to cutting back on their sizes and expenditures. Which governments are reducing to the tune of 40%? The spend, spend, spend days of yesterday really don't apply now. How can you tax seriously decreased wealth and hope to spend your way out of this economic mess? Clearly we need a new President and we need to continue the revolution started in 2010 when a large number of congressmen and senators who were blind spend-a-holics were tossed out of office. Seriously, Schneider is backing a return of spend-spend-spend Nancy Pelosi to power? Cuts are painful. Failing to cut back will be astronomically painful! Ask Greece and other European nations!
Norquist isn't the problem. The huge drop in personal wealth in the USA is! (See my comments above)
The stock market is up 15% so don't point to that as 'pain'. If the wealthy 1% had lost 40% of their wealth there would be hearings about it, and the wealthy would be rioting at the Country Club, instead of pulling Chase Bank in for a show hearing. Bush 41 raised taxes to save the country and lost an election because of it, but sacrificed ideology. Bush 43 cut taxes and spent money like there was no tomorrow. Now, the Republicans and Democrats have to work together to fix the mess. Ideology before country is going out of style fast. You continually take a partisan position and I understand why, but there's more important things than just electing Republicans.