Dold Discards Norquist Pledge in Debate With Schneider

Candidates for 10th District Congressional seat pledge bipartisanship and trade criticism.

Pledges of bipartisanship came from both Democratic challenger Brad Schneider of Deerfield and Rep. Robert Dold (R-Kenilworth) during a debate Sunday in Lake Forest as Dold threw away a pledge made to Grover Norquist and Americans for Tax Reform to never raise taxes. 

Both Dold and Schneider talked about the economy, government spending, balancing budgets, the Middle East, women’s health and other issues in front of more than 600 people in a forum sponsored by the League of Women Voters, Patch and the Union League Club of Chicago.

When asked if they would support deficit reduction solutions which would both increase revenue and reduce spending, Dold and Schneider said they would.  For Dold this was a departure from a pledge he signed for Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform before being elected to Congress two years ago.

All but four Republican members of the House of Representatives have signed the pledge. The issue came up when the candidates were asked if they would support the Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction plan calling for new revenue and reduced spending. "I would say yes," Dold said.

Dold then touted his support of the Cooper-LaTourette financial plan as an alternative to the House Republican Budget authored by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), his party’s vice presidential candidate. He was one of eight co-sponsors—four Democrats and four Republicans.

“,” Dold said. “All options have to be on the table.”

After the debate, Patch asked Dold if his support for the Cooper-LaTourette budget meant he had voted for more government revenue in contradiction of the Norquist pledge. “I did say that,” he said.

Schneider stressed his commitment to working across the aisle as well and criticized Dold for his support of the Ryan plan.

 “I’ll do it in a way we will be able to get more than 38 votes,” Schneider said of his intentions to work with Republicans. “The day after (Cooper La Tourette was defeated) he (Dold) voted for the Ryan budget that will replace Medicare with a voucher system.”

Dold has said the Ryan plan he supports makes no changes for people over 55 and still gives people the opportunity to keep traditional Medicare.

Dold did tell the gathering he does not believe any tax increases are a good idea with the economy still in a fragile state while Schneider wants people earning in excess of $250,000 per year to pay the tax rate in effect before the Bush era cuts were passed in 2011.

“We need comprehensive tax reform,” Schneider said. “We should bring back the tax rates (for those earning over $250,000 per year) we had in 1999, the last time we had a balanced budget when spending as a percent of GDP (gross domestic product) and revenue met at 19 percent.”

Guido McGinty October 16, 2012 at 09:07 PM
I don't know about libel but his lawyer wouldn't be too happy that he's spouting off about the case here.
Penny Novy October 16, 2012 at 09:21 PM
I don't know about this. All this link does is lead to something with other links. Those links show a lawsuit, but does not show the outcome--meaning that it's still ongoing. Sooooooo, is the person who filed this suit trying to taint the jury pool by blogging here?
Margaret McCarthy October 16, 2012 at 09:45 PM
Gary, That was very clever, thank you for explaining the reason that some liberals are forced to name call those with whom they disagree. You added some needed humor to the site.
dold's supporter October 16, 2012 at 10:14 PM
How's this for outcome? https://w3.courtlink.lexisnexis.com/cookcounty/Finddock.asp?DocketKey=CABA0L0AAGIJC0LD
Guido McGinty October 17, 2012 at 01:23 AM
What does that case have to do with yours?
dold's supporter October 17, 2012 at 02:06 AM
Guido what are you talking about? This is about Dold. Isn't he running for office? Why are you trying to move the debate from Dold to anything and anyone? DOLD's company got sued for trying to not keep their part of a contract, which speaks volumes about the guy's character. Cheap crook...that's Dold. It seems no amount of evidence will make you understand the depravity of this man and how unqualified he is to have political power.
Guido McGinty October 17, 2012 at 04:09 AM
You were asked for a link to your case. You linked to an unrelated case. When called on it, you changed the subject. You don't need to keep beating a dead horse by telling me that Dold is unfit for office. No member of the blue or red War Party is fit for office, including Dold and Schneider. That should be understood at this point for anyone that has been paying attention.
dold's supporter October 17, 2012 at 05:50 PM
Read this, Dold serfs...last question of the interview. http://deerfield.patch.com/articles/election-2012-robert-Dold. Now read this: https://w3.courtlink.lexisnexis.com/cookcounty/Finddock.asp?DocketKey=CABA0L0AAGIJC0LD Now wait for Guido to tell you the case has nothing to do with Dold and you shouldn't vote the crook out of office because "they are all the same" :) Vote Dold out, he is not worth to represent you, or guido or anyone.
Guido McGinty October 17, 2012 at 05:56 PM
"but you I thought were a independent yet you too carry the water for Master Dold." You didn't even read my last post.
dold's supporter October 17, 2012 at 06:08 PM
Here you have Dold lying, in the Patch...last question of the interview. He WAS sued and LOST. Sure, he might say "not me but my company" but isn't he telling anyone he "runs a small business?" He wants credit for running a company and nothing to do with lawsuits against the company and HE LIED TO THE PATCH! http://deerfield.patch.com/articles/election-2012-robert-Dold. All Dold supportes are crooks themselves screwing their employes (and the IRS most-likely) and that's why they don't want to hear anything anti-Dold...but you I thought you Guido were a independent yet you too carry the water for Master Dold. DOLD IS A CROOK and those who still need "proof" are his serfs who hope the Master will let them wash his car or something :)
RationalTht October 17, 2012 at 06:12 PM
"supporter" - DO THE MATH - the money is not there. Look at the TOTAL INCOME of "the rich" (ie: 100%) - if you took it ALL, it does not cover SPENDING.
RationalTht October 17, 2012 at 06:18 PM
Democrats in IL have ZERO right to speak about "blind devotion to party". Their blind devotion has put IL on the edge of a fiscal cliff, if not over. Remember the Democrats' 2 in the morning vote to raise taxes, mayb 8 hrs before Republicans would have come in to stop them. Where did all that money go to "pay our bills" - it went to pay off democratic voters.
Guido McGinty October 17, 2012 at 06:21 PM
You're reading comprehension is less than stellar.
Dan Jenks October 17, 2012 at 06:30 PM
Dear Dold’s Supporter, where do I start to educate you and do I bother to waste my time? Tough questions. First, Dold and Rose Pest Solutions are separate legal entities – 500+ years of common law back this up. As I understand it, RPS is not the alter ego of Dold – so when Mr. Dold answers that he has never been sued successfully, he is being both legally truthful and truthful in a common sense sort of way. Second, this looks like it was a breach of contract case (there is no detail). Businesses get sued all the time for breach of contract – it may or may not have been a willful breach of contract, it may have just been a misunderstanding between the parties for which a judge ruled against RPS. Finally, the question “Have you ever been convicted of a felony, sued successfully or had a restraining order placed against you?” is designed to determine if Mr. Dold has ever done something intentionally very bad (or been guilty of gross negligence) to someone else – i.e, has he broken a major law (felony), committed a tort where someone was hurt or lost money (sued successfully) or threatened to attack someone (restraining order). It isn’t about corporate breach of contract cases. We get you don’t like Mr. Dold. Enough said.
dold's supporter October 17, 2012 at 07:38 PM
Dan Jenks you are right. Dold tells people he is running a small business, that he is the owner of a small business and that he knows the challanges of running a small business but like you said, when lawsuits are concerned...500 years of law proves he could lie like the pig he is and separate himself from his company when is convenient. You are also right, Dold didn't kill anyone so just because a judge found his company guilty of trying to cheat someone of mere $100.000 that's nothing and we should ignore it. Because Dold didn't kill anyone, he should be allowed to breach a stinky contract, right? Also you are right: Dold didn't lie when he said he was not "sued" and "sued succesfully" and just because he was , it doesn't mean jack-after all he is Master Dold and you are his slave ordered to limit the damage of my revelations. And is not that I don't like Dold (he makes me throw up), but it is the imbeciles here portraying him a good man. He is not. He is a small crook with political ambitions. One should speak up against crooks and you Dan Jenks keep quiet because the crook is your guy. If Schneider was th guy lying in print you will be all over him :) Guido...you meant "your" not "you're." I'm sure.
Dan Jenks October 17, 2012 at 07:40 PM
Dold’s Supporter, you’re right – every breach of contract case is about someone cheating someone else, the notion of a separate legal identity for a small business is just a scam, everyone running for office is a crook. I can’t argue with logic, you have won, you don't sound crazy, I'm sure you've convinced everyone of the soundness of your argument. I have never accused Mr. Schneider of being a crook – he sounds like a good person to me, I applaud him (and Mr. Dold) for running for Congress and putting up with some of the crap thrown at him. I don’t like a lot of the attack ads that have been run against either Mr. Schneider or Mr. Dold – it would be nice to focus on the issues. I object to people like you – under the veil of anonymity – making spurious, infantile charges - your recent posts are a “real” contribution to the civil exchange of ideas that makes our democracy work. There is no evidence that either candidate for the 10th district is a crook. Period.
MS October 17, 2012 at 08:40 PM
"Like the pig he is" Some great discourse on here. Way to elevate above the fray.
dold's supporter October 17, 2012 at 11:27 PM
That is all you saw in the posting? I rest my case, those who vote for Dold are hypocrites.
Bringin' Down Briarwood October 19, 2012 at 12:30 AM
Spare me, Rational. The fiscal cliff didn't just happen overnight. Remember how long the governor's mansion was controlled by Republicans? Yes, Blago was a joke. And Madigan is a scumbag. But the real crime is that the republican party can't get a strong enough candidate to beat them. Once again, please stop with the blind devotion until your party can get someone strong enough to unseat these idiots. Thompson and Edgar weren't that far back. What has happened?
RationalTht October 19, 2012 at 03:10 AM
Briarwood - Yes, the path towards the fiscal cliff has been long in the making. That being said, the Democrats have controlled everything for over a decade and instead of doing something about it, the did a Thelma and Louise and put the pedal to the metal towards the cliff. I do not have blind devotion, I for instance like what White has done as SoS and vote for him. But, you have to realize that IF you vote for Schneider, you are voting for Madigan and the 2+ decades of corruption that he represents.
Bringin' Down Briarwood October 19, 2012 at 03:10 PM
First of all, Rational, I appreciate your reasonable tone to my p*ssy comment. My apologies. I don't agree with the Schneider/Madigan connection unless you can show me some sort of political/financial relationship. Madigan is so scummy that I don;t think for a second that his influence reaches beyond Springfield and the General Assembly. Having said that, if you want to make a Dold/Schneider comparison and tell me that a vote for Schneider is a vote for fiscal irresponsibility, I'm not sure I agree with that either, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. On the other hand, a vote for Dold is a vote for a group that has no problem taking this country to that fiscal cliff to prove their ideology - rather than actually addressing and solving the problem that exists. I have no use for the stamp-their-feet-and-hold-their-breath crowd. But in reality, both of them are 1 of 435, and you and I both know their influence on this topic, employment and any number of big ticket topics is incredibly minimal ...
Bringin' Down Briarwood October 19, 2012 at 03:18 PM
... In the end, Schneider gets my vote because I see a guy in Dold who has done very little and - maybe more importantly - brought very little back to his district while fighting the ideological battle. He knows how important the district is to his party, and he could have used that MUCH better than he did. Look at the list of press releases in his own web site (right column) http://www.doldforcongress.com/pages/jobs_and_the_economy/221.php. There's not ONE ITEM there that relates directly to the district and money that Dold brought in.
Dan Jenks October 19, 2012 at 06:50 PM
BDB, I just watched the ABC debate between Schneider and Dold – both good candidates. I disagree with you that the election is about “how much money have you brought back to the District” – as the Tea Party notes, that’s part of the problem in Washington and Springfield. I would rather have my politicians working on the big problems – rather than a raft of smaller, district specific accomplishments. What I liked about Schneider – from a fiscal perspective, he is probably right in that we need to let the Bush tax cuts expire, particularly on those who have the ability to pay more. I like the fact that he apparently supported Mark Kirk at some point, that he wants to fix (not end) Obamacare and that he, like Dold, has a moderate demeanor. I think Schneider is being entirely reasonable in not disclosing his wife’s salary. I also disagree with the comment that Schneider = Madigan – I don’t see any evidence of that and Mr. Schneider is running for Congress, not State Rep. (were he running for State Rep, I would want to know if he supported Mr. Madigan).
Dan Jenks October 19, 2012 at 06:50 PM
What I didn’t like about Schneider was that he couldn’t name one thing – other than helping small business more – that he would do in breaking from his party. He wants to stop the “gridlock in Congress”, but I’m not sure he is up to it given his last answer. I didn’t like the fact that he said the election was about “fighting for women, young people and environment” – these are all worthy causes, but in my opinion not the most important challenges facing our country, which are jobs/economy/deficit/national debt. What I like about Dold is, first and foremost, his support of Cooper-LaTourette and his willingness – on a host of issues – to break with his party. I like his independence and I think he is a good fit for the 10th District. The best argument for Schneider is that he is Democrat and, if you don’t like the current Republican majority, the only way to overturn that is to get rid of moderates like Bob Dold. I personally have very little confidence that a Democratic House will take the difficult measures – read spending cuts – that are necessary in conjunction with revenue increases. Therefore, Dold – an Eagle Scout, is my man.
Bringin' Down Briarwood October 19, 2012 at 07:03 PM
Jenks, I agree there needs to be more fiscal responsibility, and when/if that is achieved, there will still be billions - with a "b" - dispersed throughout the country. If a Congressman can't point me to project - and especially a single project - where he brought money in, he's not doing his job.
Dan Jenks October 19, 2012 at 10:09 PM
It’s a rainy day, I’m paying bills and listening to the Lake Forest Debate b/t Dold and Schneider on Youtube. On perhaps the most important issue of our time – budget deficit and national debt – Schneider says that he wouldn’t have supported Cooper-La Tourette. [MEMO TO PATCH and Steve Sadin – you omitted this very important fact from your article – why?] In addition, in response to the question, would you support Simpson-Bowles? Dold said “yes.” Schneider says we will have to come together – to find bi-partisan revenue increases, spending decreases – but he isn’t prepared to commit to Simpson-Bowles, Rivlin-Domenci or any other plan. He indicates that “Congress will have to come up with a bi-partisan plan that everyone can understand the choices we made are the right choices for the future of this country” and “we can explain it in a way that will get more than 38 votes”. [MEMO To PATCH and Steve Sadin, you also omitted Mr. Schneider’s position on Simpson-Bowles as well – again, why?]
Dan Jenks October 19, 2012 at 10:14 PM
When Schneider says, “Congress needs to come up with a bi-partisan plan,” isn’t that Simpson-Bowles? Is there going to be a better bi-partisan agreement out there? Why can’t Schneider commit? Four possible reasons – none of them flattering to Mr. Schneider. First, perhaps Schneider is naïve about how Washington works. Second, perhaps Schneider hasn’t spent the time reading these proposals (should be job #1 for a congressional candidate). Third, perhaps Schneider is worried about alienating part of the Democratic base that is opposed to Simpson-Bowles. Fourth, perhaps Schneider just isn’t that committed to deficit reduction and solving our national debt problem. In any event, Mr. Schneider’s statement gives me much less confidence in his ability or willingness to find a solution to these issues. Will Mr. Schneider support a deficit reduction plan only if Nancy Pelosi or Jan Schakowsky does?
Bringin' Down Briarwood October 20, 2012 at 01:24 AM
Almost all reasonable reasons, Jenks. Not enough for me to switch my vote, but worth considering. If I can go off-topic for a second, as we've seen, the whole "strictly-partisan" thing rubs me the wrong way, and that includes the Dems and an example such as Schneider's potential. When does it end? Let's say Romney wins. I have no doubt the Dems will pull the same obstructionist garbage that the GOP did for the last four years, and all of it is disgusting. Anybody have any idea when it will end? The only solution I see is if a VERY strong independent wins the presidency. And all of us know the chances of that happening anytime soon.
Dan Jenks October 20, 2012 at 02:24 AM
BDB, you make an excellent point - I don't know when it ends. It makes me wonder about the whole notion of self-governance in the 21st century America. It also makes me consider that perhaps we would do better with a parliamentary system - the winner makes the rules for next 4 years - no obstructionism, complete accountability for the party in power. Under a parlimentary system with first past the post voting, you would either vote Democrat or Republican. I know that works against voting for the individual (like Dold) - but it might be an improvement.
Bringin' Down Briarwood October 20, 2012 at 03:28 AM
Changing the whole thing to a parliamentary system? Wow! Interesting idea, but I don't have any faith in the intellect of the electorate (or the politicians themselves) to consider such an outside-the-box idea. Can you imagine how established politicians and PACs would line up against such a thing? In the end, all of this is on us - the electorate. We say we don't like the way anything is run, but we don;t do anything about it. We do the same things over and over. We hold NO ONE accountable, we don't have the smarts to organize around any new ideas and we don't drill down far enough to watch where these problems really begin - money and parties.


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
See more »