« Yoo, Boehner, Iowa knows THAT smell | Main | The time to leave Iraq is soon, very soon »

October 17, 2006

Go to this debate

Your best -- and perhaps last -- chance to see 17th Congressional District candidates Andrea Zinga and Phil Hare go face-to-face comes tomorrow night (Oct. 18) at Augustana College in Rock Island.

The debate begins at 6:30 p.m. in Centennial Hall, 3703 7th Ave. Doors open at 6 p.m. The auditorium seats 1,200, and is free and open to the public.

Posted by jcb at October 17, 2006 01:31 PM


Yea come watch and realize how different these candidates are. One that offers what the Dispatch labels the "failed policies of the past" and the recently endorsed by the Peoria Journal Star candidate that is ready to be in the district and working for solutions with local leaders.

Posted by: What A Show at October 17, 2006 05:06 PM

Why would I go to this debate. Phil Hare is the right hand of Lane Evans and with the illness that Lane is going through Lane deserves for the people to shine the light of hope for Lane with a win for Phil Hare. Phil has used his staff to perfection and they will help bring a victory to Phil. Lane will be with Phil to guide him through the choppy waters that most freshmen have to go through in Washington. With Lane at his side we can expect Phil to take over where Lane left off. They will make this a better land for you and me.
A vote for Phil is a vote of health and confidence to Lane Evans. Thank heavans for Lane Evans!!!

Posted by: Anonymous at October 17, 2006 05:11 PM

Why would I go to a debate between 'the failed policies of the past' and a candidate that cannot even get an FEC report in on time (and then show no support from her own party when she does).

Talk about poor candidates!

Posted by: Anonymous at October 18, 2006 07:51 AM

The Peoria Journal-Star had an interesting way of framing it's endorsement of Andrea Zinga.

The editorial starts out by stating the the 17th may be the "most egregious bit of gerrymandering in all America."

After noting both Hare's and Zinga's position on the issues, the editorialist returns to the gerrymandering theme and writes "...those in the 17th who wish to cast a protest vote over their resentment at being manipulated, over allowing congressmen to pick their constituents rather than vice versa, should feel free to mark the box next to Andrea Zinga's name."

In other words, a vote for Zinga is a vote against the abomination of gerrymandering. Veeeeery interesting!

Here's the endorsement.

Posted by: paladin at October 18, 2006 10:54 AM

paladin, i am having trouble getting to your link. anyone else having problems, or is it just me?

Posted by: Robbie at October 18, 2006 01:19 PM

Rats! With html, one false keystroke and you're DEAD! Here's the Peoria Star-Journal endorsement----I hope!

Posted by: paladin at October 18, 2006 01:24 PM

My take on this race is pretty discouraging.

It's sad, but this race boils down to a not too bright lady who's nothing more than a talking head, and some fat guy who couldn't even do that!

Ooops - did I really say that?

Posted by: Anonymous at October 18, 2006 05:37 PM

Amazing debate. Andrea was calm cool and on point. Hare was huffing and puffing....breathing heavy into his mike and seemed rather bland.

TV coverage at 10pm was straight down the middle but Channel 4 interviewed Doud House that works for HAre and I know they know he is a staffer and they tried to play it off as non partisian. Anyway......it was a good night for Zinga.

Posted by: Go Zinga at October 19, 2006 12:17 AM

Heck, I am a Republican and have to say that I am far closer to 'Anonymous 5:37' perspective than 'Go Zinga's'

What an incredible shame that with an open seat and all the need that we have in the 17th, these are the two options that we have.

I prefer Zinga only because we'll be able to get her out, whereby if Hare wins, he'll be there as long as he wants - doing the same thing that Evans did...nothing (other than getting someone their SS check three days early).

Posted by: Anonymous at October 19, 2006 10:48 AM

Chicago Tribune provides a "no endorsement" on the 17th!

On Hare - "Hare told us he can't think of one legislative matter where he would disagree with his boss (Evans), who is one of the most protectionist members in the House"

And on Zinga - "We're closer to Zinga on economic issues but not impressed with how she handles herself"

No endorsement.

Nice job Republican primary voters and Democrat leadership providing us truly poor choices...

Posted by: Disappointed in the Choices at October 19, 2006 11:08 AM

I asked four debate-goers for an appraisal. All four said Hare outdebated Zinga. Said it wasn't a slaughter, but Hare definitely came out on top.

Posted by: Barb I at October 19, 2006 11:44 AM

No one is un-biased. If you lean toward the Democrat opinion than anything Hare said you are going to rate higher. If you like Zinga than what she said and your saying "right on". So a poll of four debate goers in an audience of 600 is not very helpful. Thanks for playing. Try again.

Posted by: Who Won? at October 19, 2006 03:48 PM

ww - you don't feel that adults are capable of an impartial opinion? Do you feel that Barb's friends are not undecided voters? I might ask as to how your comments were insightful as to the results of the debate?

From what I have read online today it seemed to be a decently even debate. I recall reading once that most voters don't remember debates so it is important to not say something stupid. As long as you generalize and don't get bogged down in political talk, you can get through debates with minor changes in voters minds.

Posted by: Robbie at October 19, 2006 04:52 PM

Phil ever disagree with Lane?

Phil will almost stop short of claiming that Lane can walk on water, what else can he do?

Phil's a fat nobody who couldn't even survive a fair primary and had to get an "appointment" onto the ballot like his "little buddy" Mike Jacobs.

It's no wonder that the Argus Dispatch and QC Times seem to view their own readership with disdain, when Hare and Jacobs are the "poster children" for QC politics, it's entirely possible that voters who elect such losers are only getting the leadership they deserve!

My prediction - everyone's perspective on Phil's appointment (which was engineered by John G.) will change dramatically once John G is indicted in the Blagojevich pay to play scandal!

Posted by: Anonymous at October 20, 2006 03:29 PM

Anonymous at October 20, Hare won his appointment process fair and square. He defeated a sitting state senator from the south. He beat Mayor Mark "Eddie Haskel" Schwiebert soundly. Mike Boland could only muster his own vote and two others. What part of Hare is a steamroller don't you understand?

Posted by: Anonymous at October 20, 2006 10:54 PM

sounds like anonymous 3:29 has it figured out...

Posted by: zinged again at October 23, 2006 11:15 AM

"Phil's a fat nobody?"
And Zinga is what -- a slim somebody? The only accomplishment she's made her entire life is reading news. Not even reporting news -- just reading it.
Meanwhile, Hare has spent a couple of decades helping to run an enormously successful Congressional office in this very district.
And he "couldn't survive a fair primary?" Where have you been, man? He won that fair primary.
Bad news, anonymous: You've been blinded by your bias.

Posted by: Barb I at October 23, 2006 11:53 AM

Speaking of Hare, I went to the movies Saturday afternoon (Flags of Our Fathers---OK, but needed better editing) and who should plop down in front of me with a large bag of popcorn, but the illustrious "Congressman" Hare.

Yep, 18 days away from Election Day and "Congressman" Hare had nothing better to do that go to the movies. Looks like he'll be just like his illustrious boss----a do-nothing bench-sitter.

Let's all Thank Heavens for Lane Evans for delivering "Congressman" Hare as our richly deserved representative in Congress.

Posted by: paladin at October 23, 2006 01:39 PM

Get real BarbI, Hare did not win a "fair primary", that would be Lane Evans. But unfortunately, one week after he "won" the primary, Evans decided that he wasn't able to run for another term after all. So he threw his support behind his toady (Hare) and the "primary" became committeemen selecting (not electing) Hare.

Sorry Barb, but you're the one who's been "blinded by bias." I can't believe you made such an obvious rookie mistake! Stick with Iowa politics----you obviously no longer have the chops to cover Illinois.

Posted by: paladin at October 23, 2006 04:27 PM

So what is fair. Having your best friend Jonny Gianulis call precinct committemen.....most who have state jobs that were given to them by him call up ans say....."Hey, Hare our boy." Oh by the way, how's the wife, how's the job. Thats what I thought.

Posted by: What Is Fair? at October 23, 2006 05:34 PM

Paladin, you criticize Hare for going to the movies????? Am I missing something here? The man has been campaigning for months, doesn't he deserve to spend time relaxing as well???

Paladin, in all fairness, if you feel that Hare was elected, then you feel every POTUS is elected unfairly. What was wrong with precinct committeemen picking a candidate? Is that not what happens all the time with local races that didn't have primary candidates? Are precinct committeemen not elected by the public? Last I checked it takes 10 signatures to get on the ballot as a PC. It is just the same as using the electoral college to elect the president.

Maybe if you feel that EVERY precinct committeeman in the 17th CD somehow owes allegiance to JG, then you need to get out more. Though the QC is the most important part of the 17th, you need to realize that most of the district isn't controlled by the RICO dems...

And last but not least, in a country where bulging waistlines are the norm, you guys need to lay off the weight jokes... I feel that old wrinkly plastic surgery gone bad looking Andrea Zinga would be a much better target :-P

Posted by: Robbie at October 23, 2006 10:33 PM

I have been wondering...will Phil Hare get even one endorsement from an impartial source (non-union)?

I am no Zinga fan, I think that she will do little other than spout the Republican line (which has proven to be rather unproductive for the country) - but I still see no positive attribute in Mr. Hare (although I am sure that he is a nice man).

As posted often in the blogs...what a poor choice the voters have in this race.

Posted by: zinged again at October 24, 2006 07:07 AM

Robbie if you can't see the difference between a candidate being elected in an open primary as opposed to being selected by a handful of party elites, I really don't know what to say to you or how to explain it.

As for "Congressman" Hare, I'd have to say I was more surprised than critical when he showed up at the movies Saturday afternoon. My immediate thought was that Hare was so sure of the outcome of the election, that he felt he didn't have to work to win any more votes.

OK Robbie, I admit the popcorn thing was a cheap shot, but this was the first time I had seen "Congressman" Hare up close and personal, and lordy, he is LARGE!

Posted by: paladin at October 24, 2006 12:19 PM

if you can't see the difference between a candidate being elected in an open primary as opposed to being selected by a handful of party elites, I really don't know what to say to you or how to explain it

quite well said!

While I can't confess to being a fan of paladin's right wing musings, he's hit this nail on the head!

The one from Lane's office who actually had the qualifications to run for Congress was Jerry Lack. He's got to be getting itchy though, I heard Phil promised J.Lack Boland's Rep seat as compensation, but Boland looks ready to lose that to the republicans.


Posted by: Anonymous at October 24, 2006 05:37 PM

Clips from this debate are now being posted to You Tube

Posted by: M Johnson at October 25, 2006 10:36 AM

I did watch the Zinga utube clips and I must say - she most definitely gets the prize for talking for more than 4 minutes (in the clips) and saying absolutely nothing. She mentions several different challenges, but does not mention even one innovative idea. This is exactly that is wrong with the Congress today - all speak - no action. I would also like to know how in the world she is going to pay for all these infrastructure improvements and continue to cut taxes? I guess she will worry about a tiny little thing called revenue if she gets elected. All image, absolutely NO substance whatsoever. There are more than 500 members of Congress like that right now - we certainly don't need another one. She says we need a “new breeze through Congress”. I agree, but she has displayed only old politics to me. She has read the consultants playbook to get elected. Unfortunately, so have the other 435 members of the House – that is why CNN is running a special on the “Do Nothing Congress”. Total and complete focus on Election Day – NO emphasis on governing. She touts she is strong on defense - but all she has to offer about the war on terror is "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here" - what is the going rate for a poll generated catch phrase these days anyway? Politicians are so trained to offer 60 second sound bites – that even when the have an hour to talk the substance still does not come to the surface – all we get is a string of sound bites that add up to 60 minutes. Zinga does have one thing going for her though - the best meaningless catch phrases money can buy.

Posted by: Rob Mellon at October 25, 2006 08:27 PM

Rob, let's not give the voting public too much credit...the voting public does not want substance and can not understand much more than sound-bites. A politician, to be successful needs to get a message out in few words, lest they run the risk of boring an uninspired public.

As to Zinga, yes, she is more mind-numbing than most. She offers little more than (Republican) politics-as-usual and in a District that is 60+% Democrat, this is not good. As a Republican myself, this is not good.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 26, 2006 09:59 AM

Hey Rob Mellon......Did you miss where Andrea critized how the selection process was handeled? I'm sure even you could agree with her on that one.

Posted by: HMmmmm at October 27, 2006 10:00 AM

I know that my opinions were directed toward Zinga. I was responding to an earlier post with a link. I want to make myself clear though - both parties lack substance. I know that we are all busy and most do not have time to significantly research all those running for office, but the candidates are given more than 1 hour each, during the debates - why no substance at those events? I am unhappy with the election process in general. Election day should be just the beginning - not the final destination. As for the selection process - I was the only candidate during the forums that criticized the process, so I do agree with Andrea on a few of the issues. Maybe someday a political maverick from one of the parties will run for Congress and challenge the system - get enough support and win.

Posted by: Rob Mellon at October 27, 2006 01:45 PM

Sad that Zinga has to use YouTube to get her message across. I guess when you have no support and no money that is where you are left. Before you all go crazy about PAC money coming to Hare's campaign, understand that a majority of the PACs that have given money are unions, thus representing people. Not people like Exxon mobile who only represent the money hungry oil business.

Posted by: Craig at October 28, 2006 11:08 AM

Hmmmmm. I wonder if we compared how many people were employed by "Exxon mobile" and other "money hungry" corporations as opposed to unions, who employed more?

Who creates more jobs-----unions or eeeeevil corporations?

If the "money hungry
oil business" employs more people than unions, how do unions "represent the people"? Don't they only represent people who belong to unions and not "people" in general?

Inquiring minds wanna know!

Posted by: paladin at October 30, 2006 01:43 PM

I advocate spending limits for every campaign, but no limit on a single campaign contribution. For example, there could be a $300,000 limit on a congressional campaign. If Candidate A wants to collect $300,000 from one source so be it - there would be complete transparency though. Maybe the politicians could actually govern if they did not have to raise a million dollars -$100 at a time. This is not a plan, just a thought. If Andrea Zinga gets $100,000 from Exxon Mobile - if the voters know - I personally don't care. I have always had a problem with politicians, many Democrats, calling for spending limits then going about collecting every dime they can. If I ever run for another office I will personally set spending limits on my campaign - win or lose. If I am for it – then I am going to live by it.

Posted by: Rob Mellon at October 30, 2006 05:27 PM

There's an awful lot of precinctcommitteepeople throughout the 17th who would be mightily insulted by the (ill-informed) categorizations thrown around here, claiming they were mere pawns to John G. Many were interviewed after the votes were cast in Rock Island County and most said they chose Hare because they'd known him for years. When asked whether John G. had anything to do with their decision, many answered, "I've never met that man in my life."
Two women from the Galesburg area said they resented the implications by some, adding, "Nobody tells me how to vote."

Posted by: Barb I at November 2, 2006 12:52 PM

Boo Hoo! Let them be offended, if the shoe fits wear it!

Posted by: nmp at November 5, 2006 04:36 AM

The only political experience Zinga has was reading the political scripts off the teleprompter at Channel 4 ! She even admitted she hadn't uttered a political oponion of her own until 4 years ago at a picnic! Wow...There's experience! She also admitted she wasn't even a registered voter in Illinois for 20 years when she lived here! If she wants to get her feet wet in politics, than start with a local election like alderman or even run for mayor of Coal Valley where she lives. Why is she jumping into a Congressional race when she doesn't have a clue about politics?

Posted by: Rita at November 5, 2006 09:18 PM