Who fared best in Monday night's 18th District debate?

OK. I have to swallow hard here, but I admit that Aaron was far out-classed by his opponents tonite. His immaturity and careless shoot-from-the-hip remarks clearly illustrate that, like his endorser George W Bush, Aaron can put his foot-in-his-mouth with the worst of them.

Aaron and his support of the obviously failed policies of the past eight years, under the Cheney-Bush debacle, now indicates to me that he is not ready for such an important office. (Don't forget about his RACIST remarks at the GOP convention. At first, I forgave him -- but it's too much now to let him slide any further.

I think it was a draw between Shaefer & Callahan, but I give the slight edge to Callahan - based on her superior knowledge of foriegn policy.

She's been to the middle east, and has seen 1st-hand what this false war has done to our fine US soldiers. Aaron hasn't bothered to visit the middle east, but he did take time to vote against more funding for returning soldiers from Iraq & Afghanistan. (And he had time to go to LA & San Diego for fund-rasing trips -- at state taxpayer expense, I wonder?).

I'd call it a draw, too J-dub, except I cannot forget how bad things were in district 150 after he insisted on hiring Rooster, even against the advice of 150's own paid consultants - and without properly vetting her.

If he's that careless with a child's future, do we really want him representing us in the US House?? And no one seems to want a boy who idolizes the corrupt administration of George W Bush.

I don't know about nebuddy else, but I want to send Barak Obama to the White House, and send a Democratic slate that supports him - like Colleen Callahan. Obama can only be successful in the White House, if he has like-minded legislators in the US House!
Juan & Jude

Aaron was great! He reminded me of his top-level idol - the current President - who came to town to support Aaron. In fact, Aaron was almost a "mini-me" version of George W Bush tonight.

Since I'm sure everyone is anxious to extend the hugely successful Bush-Cheney legacy, we should be sure to vote for lil' Aaron and all the other proud endorsees of that wonderful, compassionate Pres Bush.

Besides, I'm sure we can all agree that there just aren't enough countries with nuclear weapons, so let's get Shock elected so he can move forward with getting atomic bombs into the hands of many nations!!

Go Aaron Go... sell those bombs to Taiwan, but make sure you vote yourself one more pay raise before you leave the IL G.A.

Aaron Shock = "Bush-lite"

Great satire, facemgr. I too am scared of sending this man to DC. I believe Callahan has far more wisdom, integrity and ability to "represent" us in DC than just be a politician like Schock wants to be. He truly scares the bejesus out of me.

Callahan was superior in her comments and mature well thought out views. This debate changed my vote from Aaron to her.

Good points, all. I, too, am a loyal card-carrying & dues paying member of the GOP. However, I won't be casting a straight ticket this year. I had already decided to go with Lyons for States Attorney, and I was on-the-fence in the Congressional race, but after seeing them side-by-side, I'm behind Ms. Callahan.

I see that the DNC was out in force tonight to spin and project their storylines. "Bush-Lite"! "I was a fence sitter"! "Card carrying member of the GOP"? Ho naive do you think the average or usual voter actually is? If you think that the war was fake and not for real, then you have zero credibility with me or any other veteran. Speaking of Naivity, the Democrats bill for returning troops was nothing more than a political move to claim that they supported the troops. It was a bill labeled to give the impression that it was for the troops, but it was actually filled with anti-war proclamations such as a call for a timetable and funding for our troops in the field, that would have underminded the Commander and Chief and the war effort.
Let's quit trying to form public opinion as this poll will actually do, especially when the DNC floods these styles of polls to do just that. Make it look favorable for their candidate!

I'm hate to admit this, but I'm jumping on the bandwagon here. I understood when Aaron was trying to make a bold statementby hiring Royster as PPS 150 superintendant without properly vetting her; I bit my tounge when he gaffed about the 'nukes to Taiwan' issue; I laughed when his campaign mgr implied that I wasn't patriotic because I was unexcited that 'W' was coming to town to support Aaron; I dismissed "debate-gate" as political gamesmanship, allowing him to dodge so numerous debates; I pretended not to hear the less-than-overt RACISM in his remarks to the GOP convention; and I gritted my teeth when his initial reaction was to avoid paying the $38,000 taxpayer tab for a private endorsement/visit by the war criminal - George W Bush.

But his performance in the debate last night was the straw that broke the camel's back... it's not that he didn't recite his well-rehersed lines well, it's just that he sounded so robotic in his answers, and avoided direct answers.

And that's beside the point that there are two well-qualified opponents to choose from, instead of voting for Aaron.

Yesterday, I saw a woman in a store wearing a "Republicans for Callahan" button. Well, tell me where I can get one of those, because I now consider myself to be one of those GOP for Callahan.

Alan, Alan, Alan... your argument might carry more weight if it wasn't filled with grammatical & spelling errors (commander AND chief?!?).

It appears you attended District 150 schools during the Aaron Schock-era.

I'm now a "Farmer for Callahan"... go get 'em, CC!!

re-Facemgr; I mispelled one word, and that makes it filled with gramatical errors? Could it be that I was in a hurry and made a mistake? Here is something for you to dwell on: Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer inwaht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is tahtthe frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae.The rset can be a total mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit any porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, butthe wrod as a wlohe. You can eevn use wrods out of cnotxet and one wulod stlil copmerhdend waht is bieng epxrsesed. So dnot alolw tohse who wnat to sliecne or spuperss yuor oipnoin sahme or itnimidtae you!

Ohhhh, ALAN... you're digging your hole deeper & deeper. You should quit before you're buried.

FIRST, in your initial entry, you had MORE than 1 misspelled word: 'Ho' 'Naivity' 'underminded'... and, for the sake of being generous, we'll call it just two grammatical errors. The worst one is referring to our President as "Commander AND Chief"!! I thought we all learned that info in our jr. high Constitution tests (well, unless you attended #150 during Aaron's school board presidency).

**And then, in your reply, you compounded your apparent inability to articulate a thought with proper grammar and spelling. Specifically, you refer to "rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy"... from what language does the word "rscheearch" come? And where is Cmabridge Uinervtisy? What's a "Uinervtisy" anyway?

Congrats! You misspelled 3 words of a 4-word sentence; a new record, probably.

C'mon, if you're going to make wild allegations, at least use correct spelling.
Geesh.

I am a born and raised Republican farmer. I work the same land that my father and grandad did.
I first voted in 1948 and I voted for all Republican candidates, except for President. In 1948, I voted for Harry S Truman.

Ever since 1948, I have always voted a straight Republican ticket. But for only the 2nd time in 60 years, I will NOT be voting a straight ticket.

This year, I will vote for all Republicans, except in the Congress. Callahan is a farmer's friend, so after I vote for McCain and the other Republicans, I will then turn to the page to vote for Congress, and Callahan will get my vote.
JackTimlinson

re-Facemgr; You didn't read my last post did you? You are more interested in trying to convince everyone of your superior intellect as a means of giving yourself more credibility than actually addressing points in my posts that you missed the entire point of my last entire misspelled post. The point being that you can point out gramatical errors all you want, I didn't claim to be perfect, as others can still understand my case and points. This doesn't make you right or even superior. In fact it makes you look more like a political hack trying to talk down to those who may not have been so keen on their grammar! So, who is really digging themselves a bigger hole?

ALAN; uhhhh, yeah. Whatever.

I thought Aaron outshined Callahan in more ways than one. Callahan is full of it with her "heart-felt" "im one of you" answers. She sounds like she took how to be a politicial 101 and applied all of that knowledge during the debate. The bottom line is that it's clear that Aaron has the experience and knowledge to back up what he is saying what he will do in Congress. He's right, he has done a lot and with his record, it can be safely assumed that he will do more.

If Aaron outshined Callahan, it's only because he's all icing - but NO cake. He came across as shallow and insincere, and he appeared to be what he is: a professional politician who only sees the US Congress as a stepping stone to some higher office (God forbid).

Aaron Schock looked as if he had been doing this for years... After his performance in the debate, I am predicting a land slide victory in November for him over Callahan.

Aaron did a great job and he has my vote. And the vote of just about everyone else I know of.

Colleen Callahan presented herself in a confident and highly professional manner. She spoke with a maturity born from years of experience that Mr. Schock will only achieve by living at least 15 more years. My concern with Mr. Schock representing us is the fact that he is obviously a career politician and, by the very nature of the beast, he will concern himself with the next step and how to best win that office rather than the interests of his constituents. His eye is not on the people but on the prize. For that reason alone one would have to be a fool to vote for him.

I also agree that he was very robotic in his responses with the exception of how many times he hesitated and used the silence filler "um." That may have been intentional to make him look more human and less calculating.

My vote is for Callahan.

Colleen Callahan (a farm broadcaster) could not even get the endorsement from the Farm Bureau! She is out of her league.

I will agree that Aaron screwed up with the comments about Taiwan. I do notice that in the debate, the news people pretty much ripped him a new hole for that. He needs to take a few lumps for that. So, he did. Young? Yup. You see a young person learning from his mistake. Does that make him absolutely incompetent? Nope. How about you? You ever done that sort of thing before? Said something stupid. Even better, you college students putting these comments out here, do you like being called 'young and therefore incompetent'? That's the line you presented here. He's young, so he's 'irresponsible'. No, he isn't. He is human, though. Now, when I see the same kind of mistakes in an older person, I will disparage them more. They've had the learning opportunities, and shouldn't be doing that sort of thing. He should be more responsible as a politician? Yes, I agree. But, again, is he too unintelligent to learn from the mistake? No? Then he has learned. Drop it then. Or is it, not the mistake that is the issue? Could it be it's easier to point out a mistake in an opponent, not in order to correct it, but in order to make other people think badly of him? Yes? So then, these comments are not made as GENUINE criticism for valid, corrective reasons? They are being made to win the game, not correct a problem? Then, pray tell, why should a reasonable person listen to them?

trimate: Aaron Shock is a former school board member who couldn't even get the endorsement of the Education Federation (IFT).

noah: Callahan's poll numbers are rising, and Aaron's have slipped below 50%... I bet you still think the Cubs have a chance, too!!

James W, I think you need to revise your comment... First of all, look up how to spell Schock! Secondly, the cubs weren't ahead going into the last few innings of the playoffs, just like Colleen Callahan isn't ahead going into the last few weeks of the race. "CC" has just about as much of a shot at winning as did the cubs.... not much.

Noah:
You conveniently side-stepped the question, sir. Why don't you try explaining the polling numbers??

With over $1 million raised, you'd think lil' Aaron's #'s would be increasing - not decreasing...

BTW, I know how to spell Shock. Do you know how to capitalize cubs?

James W, it sounds to me as if you have sour grapes that your candidate cannot compete with Aaron Schock* in terms of fund raising. As far as the poll you are referring to goes, Aaron Schock* is still in the lead, and a lead is a lead in politics. I am from God’s country, aka Tazewell County, and I bet that there are more Aaron Schock* campaign signs in the ground here than Colleen Callahan voters in the district come November!

James you’re just like CC; you’re out of your league. She is not only going to lose this election, she is alienating herself from the agricultural community. Her 20 year old style of speaking (tale of two cities reference) is outdated and boring. After November CC and Callahan Communications will be thankfully forgotten!