Candidates Believe They Have Experience to Legislate

Sheyman, Schneider and Bavda plan to translate their experiences into crafting effective legislation as they seek opportunity to challenge Dold.

Bringing diverse backgrounds to the campaign, the candidates facing off in the March 20 Democratic primary to earn the right to try to challenge all plan to use those experiences to be effective legislators. 

All three—Deerfield management consultant 50, Waukegan community organizer 25, and Mundelein attorney 34—come to the race with a similar idea of how to get legislation passed. 

“Organizing around issues is what I’ve done my whole career,” Sheyman said. “I’ve been bringing people together on health care and funding for public schools,” he added referring to his efforts for MoveOn.org. 

Sheyman knows gathering enough support to pass legislation may be no easy task. Though he believes the Democrats will take a majority in the new Congress he is prepared if he must to push his agenda as a member of the minority. 

Sheyman realizes he may have to use his organizing skills to persuade members who do not see things his way. 

“It’s a simple idea. You want government to be on your side,” Sheyman said. “We’ll bring people who can make a difference to Washington to bring a message to leadership.” He would bring the constituents of those opposed to his ideas to lobby their legislators. 

Bavda, who was a consultant and employee of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago among other things before going to law school in 2006, had to work with diverse groups and believes he can do the same as a member of Congress. 

“I had to build a coalition for stem cell research in Missouri,” Bavda said. “I had to learn what diverse organizations had in common to show them what kind of problems they faced (together). I know how to build consensus.” 

Schneider brings 27 years of experience as a management consultant to the table where he was the arbiter of groups within an organization. He helped them find common goals and accept them to benefit an organization. 

“My experience as a consultant prepares me very well,” Schneider said. “I ask questions and dig deeper into an issue to address a problem. This allows them (opponents of an idea) to move from their position.” 

Schneider has already had experience working with members of Congress through his experience with the (AIPAC) and other organizations. He has actively lobbied federal legislators for a stronger relationship between Israel and the United States. 

In 2000 Schneider was part of AIPAC’s New Leadership Network as a volunteer. He was raising money for members of Congress and candidates and developing relationships to explain the state of affairs in the Middle East. Then Rep. Barron Hill (D-IN) was part of Schneider’s responsibility. 

“He thought (the late Palestinian Authority President Yasser) Arafat was a man of peace,” Schneider said. “Two years later I got a letter from Barron Hill telling me Arafat was a terrorist. He wrote he was communicating that to President (George) Bush,” he added explaining sometimes it takes time to get a message across. 

Both Schneider and Sheyman support but want to see more done to put Americans back to work. Though Sheyman considers it a “first step” he believes his commitment to rebuild the American middle class requires bolder action.

“We need to pass a new jobs bill that will put a million people to work now,” Sheyman said. He favors legislation introduced in August by Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Evanston) and other members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus designed to do that. 

Sheyman has been endorsed by three members of that group. They are Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-Chicago) along with the two chairmen, Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) and Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ). 

Schneider, who has been endorsed by state Sen. Susan Garrett (D-Lake Forest) and state Sen. Jeff Schoenberg (D-Evanston), thinks a long term review of American infrastructure needs is the answer. 

“We need a 50-year vision for our infrastructure looking at the (power) grid, transportation and our schools,” Schneider said. He thinks futuristic thinking will provide a better return on investment for the country.

Daniel Krudop November 01, 2011 at 12:04 PM
“'We need a 50-year vision for our infrastructure looking at the (power) grid, transportation and our schools,' Schneider said. He thinks futuristic thinking will provide a better return on investment for the country." Plus a 50 year plan to pay several Trillions of dollars of debt. Oh, I forgot, we don't have to worry about that. That's why we have children and grandchildren. To pay for our excesses.
Louis G. Atsaves November 01, 2011 at 01:42 PM
Robert Dold has been a level headed thoughtful legislator who understands that this nation has spent itself into a deep hole that has harmed the middle class, depressed business and has cost us jobs. His background as a businessman has served us well in this district. As a Republican I cringe when he votes with Democrats at times but I respect the fact that he is not a rubber stamp and has good explanations for his actions. The three Democratic challengers seem more interested in continuing the wild spending of the Obama Administration which was supposed to keep unemployment below 8% nationally and failed miserably. None of them expressed an interest with working with Republicans for the good of the nation, which infers that more years of political gridlock in Washington will take place. With another round of layoffs taking place and unemployment starting to increase again both Nationally and in Illinois, at best the three challengers offer tired solutions that have failed these past years. Three Democratic rubber stamps challenging a thoughtful moderate in a district deliberately gerrymandered to favor Democrats even more than the old 10th? We voters spent the last decade rejecting strongly liberal rubber stamp Democratic candidates who were supposed to win in Democratic turf in favor of thoughtful moderate candidates who worked hard to represent us in Kirk and Dold. The choice is clear. Reelect Dold.
RB November 01, 2011 at 02:17 PM
Level headed? Sorry, but I can't agree that signing the no new taxes pledge before he even begins to serve is level headed. He tied his hands behind his back before he was elected. Someone can't make 'level headed' decisions when they have declared allegiance to Grover Norquest before they take the oath of office. If Dold renounces his pledge to Grover Norquest and acknowledges his allegiance only to our country and district then I would consider the idea that he has the capability of being 'level headed'.
Louis G. Atsaves November 01, 2011 at 05:44 PM
RB, if you feel that higher taxes will create more jobs and improve the economy and our business climate, show me how. We just raised taxes in Illinois and somehow our local state economy and business climate didn't improve.
The Q November 01, 2011 at 06:46 PM
why not just make taxes 100% and let the government spend it all.....lol
Daniel Krudop November 01, 2011 at 07:38 PM
No, no, no, I've got a better idea. Put everyone in the Country on food stamps. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack said, “Every dollar of SNAP benefits generates $1.84 in the economy in terms of economic activity.” During FY 2010, the program served 40.3 million people, with a total Federal cost of $64.7 billion. That means that $119 billion was generated in economic activity. The population of the United States of America is 280,218,971. Just think. According to this current Administration, if every American were to be given food stamps, at a cost of approximately $450 billion, we would generate almost $900 billion in economic activity. That way we could also get even closer to the Grecian Utopia most Democrats really want.
RB November 01, 2011 at 10:00 PM
You may have missed my point. How can he be level headed when he has already pledged to never raise taxes. I'm against higher taxes as much as the next guy. Things happen. One day, to balance the budget a level headed decision may require a vote to raise taxes on 'someone', and to reduce expenses. By the way, the pledge that he took would not allow something like elimination of some ridiculous loop hole if they increase revenue. He has signed a pledge of no new revenue...period. That to me is not be level headed.
Louis G. Atsaves November 01, 2011 at 10:36 PM
RB: You claimed Dold pledged personally to Norquest that he would never raise any taxes. The pledge form on Norquest's website states the pledge is made to the constituents of the legislator. That would be you and me. Your histrionics that the pledge was made to one man and not to country and legislative district are flat out wrong. That pledge has been around since 1985 and was started at the request of President Ronald Reagan. By my count, that was a quarter of a century ago. You didn't answer my question. How did the massive Illinois State tax increases improve the economy of Illinois and create jobs and prosperity? To her credit, State Senator Susan Garrett voted against them. So why are Springfield Democrats moving towards reducing some of the recent tax increases?
RB November 01, 2011 at 11:59 PM
Delete RB 6:32pm on Tuesday, November 1, 2011 If you are asking me about my opinion if taxes are too high after the tax increase in Illinois, I would say yes- particularly since we don't seem to spend it so wisely. pension reform before higher taxes. I stated that Dold signed a pledge that he would never Raise taxes for any reason. Things happen, and he should never sign a pledge that would not allow him to be levelheaded in a time of crisis. I'm not saying raising taxes is a good thing. I am saying signing a pledge to NEVER do something before heading off to Washington is not wise and certainly restricts him for being level headed. Let's consider for a moment that the Congress finally gets us near a balanced budget by cutting many programs and needs to raise revenue in one small area via elimination of a tax loophole. He would have to vote no because he signed a pledge that he would never vote to increase revenue. his pledge restricts him from being level headed and perhaps even changing his mind. Personally, I want a representative who has the capability and desire to vote his convictions as they evolve. Reagan raised taxes, Bush 41 raised taxes. They changed their minds and did something different than planned. At least they had not signed a pledge like Dold and Joe Walsh. Dold chose not to allow flexability by signing Grover's pledge before he even took the oath of office. we need a representative who has not signed the Grover Norquest pledge or has renounce it
RB November 02, 2011 at 12:22 AM
Louis, this may help you understand my point. If Dold had not signed the Grover Norquest pledge and never voted for a tax increase, I would simply say that's his prerogative. However, by signing the pledge he has limited his ability to make a balanced judgement about each vote. He can hold all the townhall meetings he wants and despite what the audience expresses about a specifitake ensue increase he has already committed his vote to be NO before he even 'listens' to his constituency or a debate in Congress. That's my point. He can't be level headed after signing such a pledge.
nsmom November 02, 2011 at 12:49 AM
Dold has come full circle on Choice, going from giving anti-choice interview answers and posting similar positions/endorsements during the primary, to strongly claiming to be pro-choice (even producing a commercial with his sisters making that claim) during the general election, to voting against Choice as our congressman. His pattern on the environment is similar. Why should we vote for a guy who's blatantly lied to us about key issues to our district? Fortunately the new 10th is more progressive and should send Dold back to Kenilworth.
Daniel Krudop November 02, 2011 at 01:19 AM
I wouldn't consider his vote against the defunding of planned parenthood to be against Choice. Especially since the raison d'etre of planned parenthood is to provide abortions.
Winnetka November 02, 2011 at 02:18 AM
"....the "new 10th" is more progressive and should "send" Dold back to Kenilworth." Would you say the same thing about Dold if the district you were so hoping he would "go back to" was a mostly non-white, poor community? You aren't absolved from racism and bigotry just b/c the focus of your intolerant comments is a wealthy white guy. Dold was elected due to his business background and fresh approach. So much for the rights of voters in the "old district 10" who by large margin voted Dold in. The Democrat Machine would not stand for this. Now we have the "new district 10" which conveniently exiles most of the "republican leaning areas" to other districts which are mostly democrat leaning.Thankfully the new district lines won't be in affect until 2013. Alot can happen between then and now.
Sully November 02, 2011 at 10:23 AM
Daniel- the purpose of Planned Parenthood is NOT to (solely) provide abortions. Get your facts straight before spouting false right wing talking points.
Winnetka November 02, 2011 at 06:45 PM
Sully: Rather than lazily suggest you don't have the facts, I will provide some to you. Planned Parenthood relies heavily on their abortion business. Do a search of the term :abortion. Planned Parenthood is the most frequent result returned. Earlier this year Congress voted to de-fund PP. Congress was right to do so. Why? For one: It is a documented fact that more abortions are performed on black women than any other group. 78% of PP clinics are in minority communities.This is a tragedy of epic proportions and those in the black community who have suggested abortion as performed by PP is tantamount to modern day genocide, know what they speak of(http://www.blackgenocide.org/black.html) Gov't and tax payer dollars being brought to bare in the implementation of abortion is highly inappropriate and rife w/ misuse. China nearly wiped out their female population(eugenics) w/ gov't mandated/funded abortions. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics).
Matt November 02, 2011 at 08:00 PM
I personally believe that the right to have an abortion is the greatest right Americans have. Planned Parenthood deserves more funding to promote and implement the services they offer - which is not just abortion. As a matter of fact, providing funding to Planned Parenthood results in fewer abortions because they offer contraceptives and education on pregnancy. Moreover, if someone desires to terminate a fetus they will do it one way or another. We should be thankful that there are organizations that do it in a safe, cost effective manner...
Sully November 02, 2011 at 08:28 PM
Uh, Winnetka... have you ever heard of disinformation? Cuz that is what you're giving! Just a few examples for you- http://factcheck.org/2011/11/cains-false-attack-on-planned-parenthood/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/apr/08/jon-kyl/jon-kyl-says-abortion-services-are-well-over-90-pe/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/what-planned-parenthood-actually-does/2011/04/06/AFhBPa2C_blog.html
Richard H Heineman Jr November 02, 2011 at 08:30 PM
Abortion services account for about 3 percent of Planned Parenthood’s activities. See this post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/what-planned-parenthood-actually-does/2011/04/06/AFhBPa2C_blog.html
Deadcatbounce November 02, 2011 at 09:51 PM
As they say there are lies, damn lies and statistics. Sorry Sully, you need to do better research. Abortions make up 3% of its total services, not funding. Planned Parenthood’s chart shows that abortions made up 3 percent of its total services. Another way to measure the group’s abortion services, however, is to divide the total number of abortions by the number of clients. For example, Planned Parenthood said that it “provided nearly 11.4 million medical services for 3 million people” in 2009. Its 2011 fact sheet says it performed 332,278 abortion procedures in 2009. That would mean that roughly one out of every 10 clients received an abortion. First, we think many people would acknowledge a difference between providing an abortion and, say, handing out a pack of condoms or conducting a blood test. The former is a significant surgical procedure, whereas the latter are quick and inexpensive services. So Planned Parenthood’s use of "services" as its yardstick likely decreases abortion’s prominence compared to what other measurements would show. Using dollars spent or hours devoted to patient care would likely put abortion way above 3 percent in the calculations. Second, it’s worth noting that Planned Parenthood self-reported these numbers, although the group says each affiliate’s numbers are independently audited. (There is no single, national audit.) So we have no choice but to accept their accuracy more or less on faith.
Martha King November 03, 2011 at 12:31 AM
Deadcatbounce, There is a difference between a surgical abortion (very rare) and a medical abortion which means prescribing a pill. They are all counted under the heading "abortion" and while there may be little difference morally to those opposing abortion, there is a significant cost difference. Winnetka, Have you thought that perhaps the reason the majority of PP clinics are in poor, minority areas is because that is where basic health care is absent?
Sully November 03, 2011 at 12:34 AM
So three percent is more significant than 97 percent? Wow, who knew? Gosh I guess that 97 percent is just BS then. Who cares about birth control, health services, education, etc.- none of that is important. We need to shut it all down to make sure that that three percent doesn't get to choose what to do with their own bodies.
Deadcatbounce November 03, 2011 at 01:17 AM
Big Government's back alley ...http://www.steynonline.com/3710/big-government-back-alley
NS November 03, 2011 at 01:52 AM
For those against abortion: don't have one.
RB November 03, 2011 at 02:05 AM
I never can figure out how Republicans are so successful at linking social issues to their campaign message with one side of their mouth. Out the other side of their mouth they speak of states rights,individual liberty and less Government. Sure,less Government unless it is about Abortion, Gay Rights, rights to bear assault rifles etc....then they Government to loom large in our lives. The reason the candidates like Dold flip flop so much is simply to pander for votes. 'Choice' seems pretty American to me.
Deadcatbounce November 03, 2011 at 12:43 PM
A WORD TO DESCRIBE OUR CURRENT SYSTEM: Ineptocracy. “A system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers*
flower child February 03, 2012 at 02:54 PM
Must be strange to be a Republican politician… First you spend millions of dollars to get a job working for the government you say you despise to become a federal employee (even though during your campaign you called all federal employees "leeches") … Then you say “We have to slash all spending until we get rid of the Deficit! ” (Even though all through the Bush-Cheney administration, while the US deficit entered the stratosphere, not one peep came from the entire Republican Party about paying down our debts) Then you say the government shouldn't favor anyone as you fight for tax cuts for the rich and tax breaks for oil companies… It is time for meaningful change in this district and in this country. I am voting for Ilya Sheyman.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something