Posts tagged: Illinois GOP

Pat Brady Digs In — Will County GOP Calls For His Resignation

Written by David E. Smith, IFA Executive Director

This past weekend, Pat Brady, Chairman of the Illinois Republican party, was interviewed on Fox 32 about his political activity to help Illinois Democrats pass radical Leftist legislation to redefine marriage and family.  This conflicts not only with the Illinois Republican Platform and the National Republican Platform but also with the views of the majority of voters in the state –specifically members of Brady’s own party.  (Watch the video HERE.)

Political Reporter Mike Flannery begins by attempting to confuse the issue by suggesting in his first question that the private political activity of Brady can be seen as outside his very public and official position of GOP chairman.  Not only is this absurd, it is intellectually dishonest to try to bifurcate the political activity of the two.

This truth becomes clear in Brady’s answer in which he is unable to separate his “personal opinion” from his official role, saying that Illinois’ current Defense of Marriage Law is “not what the Republican Party stands for.”

But Brady’s most outrageous and hypocritical comments came as he attempted to advance a narrative that blames social conservatives for all the problems the party and the state face.

“But I do believe that part of the reason that we are losing here in Illinois is our message is getting muddled by these social issues.  And the issues that we can win upon, the fiscal issues, I mean can you see a bigger mess in the country than Governor Quinn has made of the state of Illinois and the Democrats over the last twelve years?  And these social issues tend to muddle our good message that people agree with us on.  They scare suburban women.  They scare minorities.  And young people look at us like we are out of the stone age.”

I have a number of responses to offer:

  • If Pat Brady really believes that the social issues are muddling the GOP’s so-called “good message that people agree with us on,” why in the world has he decided to roll up his sleeves and get involved promoting a social issue, let alone join the side that runs contrary to the very platform he is supposed to represent?
  • Obviously, Pat Brady has succumbed to liberal propaganda that wrongly asserts that marriage is a civil right. It is not.  Read more HERE.
  • Brady wrongly claims that the social issues scare minorities.  Every time a state marriage amendment has been placed on a ballot, there has been strong support for traditional marriage from the black and Latino communities.  And in our work to oppose marriage redefinition legislation here in Illinois, some of the most vocal and animated opposition is coming from black and Latino religious leaders.  Brady is out-of-touch with reality and woefully uniformed.
  • Brady suggests that the “good message” of the GOP is getting muddled by social issues.  I have been politically active in Illinois for more than fifteen years now.  Never have I seen the Illinois GOP promote social issues.  Pat Brady and his recent predecessors have gone out of their way to avoid talking about the social issues. So, how is Brady’s “good message” getting muddled by something they have refused to talk about?  The sad truth is that while the Democrats have boldly pushed critical social issues related to homosexuality to the forefront of the political landscape, RINOs like Brady have said nothing.  As Democrats stand ready and eager to effectively destroy marriage, Brady scolds Republicans both for engaging in the social issues and for not joining extreme Democrats in this leap toward cultural suicide.
  • Later in the segment, Brady points to the Republican Party’s “AAA Team” as examples of upcoming young minority stars within the party, including:  U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (Florida), Governor Susana Martinez (New Mexico), and Governor Nikki Haley (South Carolina).  Ironically, each one of these minority GOP stars is unabashedly pro-marriage.  And you can add to this list:  Governor Bobby Jindal (Louisiana), U.S. Senator Tim Scott (South Carolina), U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann (Minnesota), and U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (Texas).

And in related news, Will County Republican Chairman Edward Ronkowski reports:

At our well attended Second Congressional District Republican candidate debate on January 17, 2013, without any discussion on the issue of retaining Illinois Republican Chairman Patrick Brady, we offered all attending the opportunity to cast a secret written ballot asking “Should Illinois Republican Chairman Pat Brady resign?” After the debate, two Republican State Central Committeemen and two Republican County Chairmen counted the ballots with poll-watchers in attendance.  The vote was 58 for Pat Brady to resign, 4 for him to stay, and two ballots submitted that were not voted.” [Emphasis added.]

Please take a moment to contact your member of the Republican State Central Committee (the governing board of the Party) to ask them to demand the resignation of Pat Brady.

Steven Daglas (District 1) —

Judy Diekelman (District 2) —

Angel Garcia (District 3) —

VACANT (District 4)

Skip Saviano (District 5) —

Chris Kachiroubas (District 6) —

Carol Donovan (District 7) —

Eugene Dawson (District 8 ) —

Jack Dorgan (District 9) —

Mark Shaw (District 10) — (847) 244-4696

Barbara Peterson (District 11) —

Deb Detmers (District 12) —

Roger Claar (District 13) —

Jim Oberweis (District 14) —

Jerry Clarke (District 15) —

Dave Syverson (District 16) —

Judy Dudek (District 17) —

Mike Bigger (District 18) — m.bigger@m​

Bob Winchester (District 19) —

Arie Friedman Obfuscates

Written by Laurie Higgins

Almost all of those who have emailed us following our exposé of Dr. Arie Friedman’s pro-abortion position have expressed shock about his views, which he does not include on his website and which we have learned are even more extreme than we realized.

Although Friedman did not return IFI’s survey on his positions or the survey sent out by Illinois Citizens for Life, he did express his views to the Buffalo Grove Patch in June:

“Friedman indicated he supports a women’s right to choose. ‘I am completely prochoice,’ he said.”

If you read the short article in the Buffalo Grove Patch, you’ll see that Friedman opposes even parental notification laws pertaining to abortion. He and his opponent Julie Morrison are vying for the dubious honor of most anti-life candidate.

Illinois Review exposes more about Friedman’s futile efforts at obfuscation, efforts accurately described as “tortured.” His campaign spokesperson Paul Miller explains that Friedman is a Conservative Jew, and that “The reality is that the Conservative Jewish religious view on the issue of abortion would be most appropriately characterized as pro-choice.”

He hastens to add that the pro-abortion “Personal PAC and Terry Cosgrove recently sent a letter to voters in our district stating that Arie is so extremely pro-life he should be equated with Todd Akin of Missouri.”

Does Miller think Republicans just fell off the proverbial turnip truck? Does he think we won’t notice that he never specifically stated whether Friedman endorses the pro-abortion position of Conservative Judaism or the pro-life position of Todd Akin?

Fortunately, we don’t have to wait for Miller to clarify his statement because Friedman clarified it in his flyer and in his interview with the Buffalo Grove Patch.

Many Republicans are now wondering what his views are on other social issues about which they care deeply.

IFA did receive one criticism for referring to Dr. Arie Friedman’s position as “anti-life.” IFI’s position on abortion is commonly called “pro-life.” The opposite of “pro-life” is “anti-life.” Those are shorthand terms used to denote political positions on abortion. They are used not just by us but by many.

Although Illinois Family Action’s positions most often align with those of the Republican Party, we’re not an arm of the Republican Party, and if the views of candidates from either party undermine truth, we will oppose them.

We also, however, understand the pragmatics of politics. All that to say, we try to balance truth and strategic political considerations.

IFA does not believe that only liberal Republicans can get elected in the 29th District. Do people really believe that most Republicans in the 29th District are so deeply committed to abortion that even in this fiscal climate, they would vote for a Democrat? In other words, in this fiscal climate, we believe that even pro-choice Republicans would vote for a pro-life Republican over a Democrat.

Moreover, if there are never any negative consequences for the Illinois GOP’s support for and promotion of anti-life, anti-marriage candidates, we will continue to get them, and little by little the IL GOP will become weaker and weaker on the social issues.

Conservative Republicans are continually badgered into “holding their noses” and voting for Republicans who won’t defend life or marriage. Well, turnabout is fair play, particularly when issues of life and truth are on the line. How about the Illinois Republican Party badger liberal Republicans to hold their noses and vote for fiscally conservative, pro-life, pro-marriage Republicans?

There will always be those who will argue that for the good of the party, or for the purpose of ousting Illinois Senate President John Cullerton (D-Chicago) or Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan (D-Chicago), or for advancing some piece of critical legislation, conservative (that is to say, real) Republicans have an ethical obligation to vote for faux-Republicans, but somehow those reasons never apply to liberal Republicans. No one tells them that for the good of the party, they should vote for a pro-life, pro-marriage candidate. Then when social liberals get into office, they start voting for pernicious legislation pertaining to abortion, civil unions, marriage, comprehensive sex ed, “hate crimes,” or bullying.

If we take a firm stand against social liberalism, eventually the Illinois GOP will start looking for and supporting Republicans whom social conservatives will support.

Mark Rhoads” left a comment following the Illinois Review post on the Friedman debacle that eloquently points to the reasons not to vote for Friedman:

This is not a topic for humor at all, but this part of the Dr. Friedman campaign statement does cause eyebrows to raise: “None of this should detract from Arie’s and our campaign’s desire to have a relationship with both the pro-life and pro-choice community.”

I am pro-life and care about the issue a great deal which is why I seldom would make a joke about the controversy, but I have to admit that this odd statement above reminded me of the late GOP State Rep. Helmutt W. Stolle of Chicago who died in 1977. Stolle was not the brightest light bulb in the Springfield socket but he owned a popular bakery in Chicago where voters flocked. Some reporter once asked him what his position on abortion was. Stolle replied in all sincerity, “If someone can work out a bill that is acceptable to both sides, I’ll vote for it.”

There is little room for compromise between life and death for the unborn defenseless child, and therein lies the sophistry and tragedy of Arie Friedman who as a physician should understand better than most people that abortion is taking a human life.

Modified by Matthew