My Vote

Vote 2010Several people have asked who/what I’m voting for, and here’s the list:

Governor – Bill Brady (
Secretary of State –   Robert Enriquez (
Attorney General – Steven Kim (
Comptroller – Judy Baar Topinka (
Treasurer – Dan Rutherford (
State House Rep (96th District) – Darlene Senger
U.S. Congress (13th District) – Judy Biggert (
U.S. Senator –  Mike Labno ( – I will write a separate post on why I’m voting for Mike.

Reform of the Illinois pension system – YES
$168,000,000 Community College Bonds – NO

Candidates I wish I could vote for:
U.S. Congress (6th CD) – Peter Roskam (
U.S. Congress (14th CD) –  Randy Hultgren (
U.S. Congress (11th CD) – Adam Kinzinger (
U.S. Congress (17th CD) – Bobby Shilling (
U.S. Congress (18th CD) – Aaron Schock (

  • Chris Johnson

    Congrats on drinking the koolaid re: mike. it tastes great.

  • http://workinprogress... Mark Weber

    Yup… I’m the dude that goes to your Church. Your wife heard me and Kipp talking politics in the lobby and she mentioned your site. So here I am.

    Interestingly enough your picks are EXACTLY like mine. I even selected the Libertarian as the best pick for our Senator… I’m still not sure how I feel about that. Regarding your (well… our) selections, how do you account for the following:

    LABNO: The Illinois Family Institute says that he supports the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) but they have an asterisk on that support — meaning he qualified his response. Any idea what he qualified? Likewise he opposes the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT), but also qualified his response. I wonder what exactly his position is?

    BIGGERT: Seems pro-homosexual. Not sure how I’m reconciling that. How will you?

    ENRIQUEZ: Where did you find info on this guy to make a decision? His web site says nothing about where he stands on anything.

    Keep on truckin’


    • Bob

      Re: Labno – check out the Sun Times article on him ( He believes that government shouldn’t be involved AT ALL with the definition of marriage, because marriage is an institution of religious organizations. That’s a classic libertarian viewpoint.

      Here’s some info on Enriquez: and He’s really not clear on some of the issues that are important to us; he’s really focused on the things that are specific to the Secretary of State’s office. He’s the only candidate that I actually found a Twitter account that was dedicated to defeating him (from the right), calling him a RINO.

      My wife says that I should talk to you about

  • http://workinprogress... Mark Weber

    Thanks for the links… I’ll check them out.

    “Constitutional Capitalism” it might be worth a conversation someday.

  • webwbr

    One more thought as a follow-up… how do we reconcile with God our vote for someone who only meets *some* of the virtues of righteousness? For example Judy Biggert (her pro-homosexual position).

    Can we really vote for the lesser of two evils and get away with it?

    • Bob

      1. In a sense, you’re ALWAYS going to be voting for the lesser of two evils, because every person has evil in them. No one will ever be purely righteous, right?
      2. Also, you don’t really “get away with it” any more than you “get away with” tolerating sin in the church. Do we recognize that government is, at best, a placeholder, and recognize that it will be flawed?
      3. Can we/should we treat homosexuality differently than abortion? Yes, I think we do. First, because of the finality of abortion. Abortion takes a life. Homosexuality doesn’t, and in that sense leaves us time to deal with it. Second, Christians make a distinction morally between the homosexual (the person) and homosexuality (the lifestyle or act). How that weaves its way into the political discussion, I’m not sure yet.

      • webwbr

        I’m enjoying this thread… please know is some sense I’m playing the “devil’s advocate” (not that I would endorse his side) in order for me to process some decisions I’m wrestling with. To your comments:

        1) Point taken – all are sinners so everyone is eventually the lesser of two evils.
        2) Indeed… government is of the sinners by the sinners for the sinners (taking liberties from Lincoln) so it will be flawed as everything is on this corrupted earth.
        3) What I’m concerned about on the homosexual front is the SPECIAL rights homosexuals are reaching for. I’m all about equal rights, but special rights I find worrisome. I get “love the sinner, hate the sin”, and I agree that abortion permanently closes a door. However, I feel like I would also like to protect the ground we currently have. We lost the legal war on protecting unborn babies; do we want to succeed traditional marriage and special rights for people who practice sexual behavior our God tells us is wrong?

        In the end these all become very personal decisions… and some I wrestle with every election. I just don’t know how I can vote for someone that I believe has good fiscal policies but would also like to undermine marriage and give special rights to people who engage in sexual immorality.

        As we learned in the Sunday Seminary class about John Calvin’s position on Civil Government; we need to obey our leaders (he called them rulers) even if they are unjust. After all, God allowed those leaders to be put in their position for some reason (and God is the ultimate president of all governments). Bad leaders may in fact be God’s judgment on evil people – I just struggle with the though that I may be voting judgment on myself with who I vote for.

        Ok… why too much thinking before my coffee this morning. I’ll continue to ponder all this and my heart and pray for God guidance.

        Thanks again for posting all this – very helpful and in many ways encouraging.

  • fivebares

    Being or not being homosexual isn’t a political position. I’m not even sure what it means to be anti-homosexual (which would be the converse of your claim that someone is pro-homosexual). I assume what’s being talked about here is that a politician is for the extension of certain rights to homosexuals? In which case it might be nice to clarify that for the purposes of a conversation…Unless we’re seriously advocating here that homosexuals shouldn’t be allowed to exist…Or that just because they have a sin we view as ickier than all of our constant sinning, that God is somehow cool with speaking of them subhumanly…

    Regardless of who we are or what we do, none of us is righteous. So a stance of voting for someone who meets “all” of the virtues of righteousness compared to “some” (as you’ve mentioned) is categorically impossible on those grounds alone.

    • webwbr

      fivebars… yes, my issue was about extending SPECIAL rights to homosexuals. I’m sorry that I did not specify that in my original comment. Thank you for seeking the distinction.

      • fivebares

        Thanks for your additional clarifications to Bob, too. Those were good ways to put it. Although, I think we have to still look a little more deeply at what it is that makes us want to keep these rights away from homosexual folks. For example, you rightly point out that God disapproves of the sexual acts. I just am not sure that’s a reason to give or not give rights. We don’t similarly push for people who have sex before marriage to be penalized for their actions, even though we would likely say that God would also disapprove of that behavior. So, without putting my hat into the ring of any particular argument, we need to be careful the precedent we are setting by making certain legal decision in our country. This thread is good at showing how we have to walk a tough line sometimes between faith and politics. There may be times where we recognize that the secular state is justified in making certain decisions, or that at the very least, our religious inclinations aren’t reason enough to make a country of various religions accept a policy that is based on one religion. It’s tough to swallow while we’re the majority religion, but might also be something we cherish when we’re no longer the majority religion…