General Election 2006 Candidate
Questionnaire Responses
By Jim Day
On September 1, 2006 we mailed
each of the 124 candidates within our Missouri and Illinois readership areas (103
in Missouri and 21 in Illinois) our General Election 2006 Questionnaire. Along
with the questionnaire, we mailed a cover letter explaining who we were, the
purpose of our questionnaire and how they could respond. The cover letter began
with the following: “The St. Louis MetroVoice is a NON-PARTISAN monthly
newspaper that is distributed throughout the greater St. Louis metropolitan
area and surrounding communities (including Illinois), that reaches
approximately 40 to 50,000 readers in over 675 distribution points. We are
presently assembling our November 2006 General Election Special Focus Issue,
which will be distributed October 18, 2006.
The purpose of this special issue is to provide candidates with the opportunity
to relate their opinions and/or positions on issues that concern our readers
and the general public. We do not endorse
candidates or political parties and would greatly appreciate your
participation in this issue by completing the enclosed candidate questionnaire
and providing us with your photograph.”
The candidates were asked to return their questionnaire by September
23rd to participate.
The Process
As you can see, our stated
purpose was clearly to provide candidates the opportunity to relate their
opinions or positions on issues that we decided were of major concern to our
readers and the public at large. We emphasized the point that we are
non-partisan and did not endorse candidates or political parties. The cover
letter was sent on MetroVoice stationery, which plainly read “St. Louis’
Christian News and Events Publication.”
Not only was this an excellent
opportunity for the candidates to relate their personal opinions or positions
on some of the top issues of our day but, at the same time, show the
differences between themselves and their opponents on the issues. By extension,
it allowed them to connect with prospective supporters/voters who agree with
their positions/opinions. Quite clearly, candidates had nothing to lose from
answering our unbiased questionnaire and everything to gain.
Candidates were given clear
and concise instructions regarding a number of ways they could return their
questionnaires and photos (either by U.S. Mail, fax or e-mail). All 124
candidates were mailed the questionnaire via First Class U.S. Mail to the
address or addresses which they themselves provided to the Missouri and Illinois
Secretary of State offices. By mailing the questionnaires First Class, we were
assured that the candidate would receive the questionnaire or it would be
returned to us as “undeliverable.” In several instances we even mailed a
duplicate copy to the candidate’s campaign or home address.
To further ensure that every
candidate received our questionnaire we employed the services of Mrs. Tracy
Mathews, the wife of one of our distributors, to call each of the candidates
starting on September 19th. She concluded her calls on October 2nd. Mrs. Mathews
was directed to call each candidate a bare minimum of two times, and if need be
mail, fax, or e-mail another copy of the questionnaire and cover letter should
the candidate (or their representative) state that they had not received the
questionnaire or that it had been misplaced or lost.
When the questionnaires were
initially mailed, the candidates were given a deadline of September 23rd to
respond. Knowing that most candidates receive a great number of questionnaires
and are typically busy campaigning or working, we went the extra mile and
extended the due date deadline first to September 30th and then again to October
6th just to make sure every candidate had ample time to respond.
Mrs. Mathews spent days (and
evenings) on the phone, visiting candidate’s web sites to obtain phone numbers,
double checked addresses, e-mailing and faxing questionnaires, spoke to
candidates and/or their representatives to make sure not a single candidate was
over looked and that every candidate received his or her questionnaire. At
various times during the process I personally contacted a number of candidates
myself.
The Reasoning Behind the Process
By now, you’re probably asking
yourself, why did we go through such a lengthy, time consuming and costly
process to make sure every candidate got our questionnaire and had the
opportunity to respond? The answer is quite simple, and in fact, was printed at
the end of the questionnaire itself which read: “If it [the questionnaire] is
not returned we will assume you Chose
Not to Respond which will be noted next to your name in our section.”
We obviously took our efforts
and questionnaire seriously. We strongly believe that citizens should be
informed as to where a candidate stands on issues which presently (or could in
the future) affect their lives -- before they vote for any candidate. In fact,
we believe that those who are in public office or vying for public office are
actually obligated to inform citizens
of their positions on issues because of their potential or present
representative status.
With this in mind, the readers
will note that several candidates have “Chose Not to Respond” printed next to
their names. This was their choice -- not
ours. We would have rather that they had responded. If your candidate didn’t
respond, I suggest you call them and ask them why not. I can assure you, it was
not because they were not given the
opportunity.
The Questionnaires
In structuring the
questionnaires, we didn’t actually ask the candidates a question per se.
Instead, we provided them with 10 different topics each with at least two, and
some with more than two, statements under each topic. In our instructions we asked
the candidate to circle only one of the statements under each topic that reflected
their opinion or position or came the closest to their opinion or position. By
in large, we attempted to provide the candidates with a range of choices which
reflected opinions from one end of the political spectrum to the other. And,
for good measure, we threw in choices which tested the candidate’s knowledge of
political philosophy and history, such as some of the statements offered under
the topics of the Legislative Philosophy, U.S. Constitution and the Second
Amendment.
Our objective was not just to
get the candidate’s opinion, but to encourage them to really think about their
opinion/position on each topic. Hopefully -- assuming the candidate was honest
-- our readers will be able ascertain from the candidate’s selections how the
candidate thinks, how informed they are, and what type of world view they
possess. On the surface it may appear that our questionnaire was simple, but I
assure you, it was not a no-brainer.
Candidates’ Answers
The vast majority of
candidates chose (as they were asked to do) just one of the statements provided
under each topic. Although it was not specifically stated in our cover letter
or on the questionnaire itself, we did allow the candidates to add short
clarification comments if they felt that the selections we provided under each
topic did not quite reflect their opinion or position. Some candidates chose a
statement, but wrote a clarifying comment. Others chose not to give any opinion
or left the topic blank and wrote in a comment.
If a candidate selected one of
our statements but added a comment, we recorded their choice, added an asterick
(*) next to their selection, and recorded their comment below their total list
of selections. For example, under our topic of Abortion (topic 4 on the questionnaire)
one of the five choices we provided was “[d] Abortions should not be allowed
except to save the life of the mother.” A candidate may have selected [d] but
added a clarifying statement such as “In the case of an ectopic pregnancy.” In this particular case you’ll see their
recorded response as 5. d*. Then, below
their list of recorded responses, you’ll find *5. Wrote in: “In the case of an
ectopic pregnancy.”
On questionnaires where a
candidate chose not to select any of our choices but chose instead to make a
comment or write in their opinion/position, we recorded their response as “na*”
(No answer with an asterisk *). Here again, below their list of recorded
responses we quoted their written response/comment.
A small number of candidates
wrote rather lengthy paragraphs to explain their positions as opposed to
selecting just one of the statements below a topic. In each of these cases,
since the candidate did not actually choose one of our statements, we put “na*”
as their answer and then edited their comments to a manageable size, printing
them below their entire list of responses. I personally did the editing of
these candidates’ responses to ensure that the crux of their opinion/position
was conveyed as accurately as possible in as few a words as possible. If any readers
wish to obtain a copy of a candidate’s complete response, they are more than
welcome to call me and I will send them a copy so they can see for themselves
what the candidate wrote.
Some candidates chose not to
make a selection under one or more of the topics, so in those cases, we simply
put “na” for no answer.
If a candidate did not respond
to our questionnaire at all, you’ll find “CHOSE NOT TO RESPOND” next to their
name.
Incumbent candidates, those
presently holding either a federal or state office for which they are seeking
reelection, are indicated by a lower case italicized and bolded “i”
after their name.
Can’t Find Your Candidate?
If you can’t find your candidate listed there
are four possibilities; 1. They are in a contest outside of our readership
area, 2. They are a local candidate running for an office below that of a State
Representative (i.e. County Executive), 3. They are a Progressive Party or
write-in candidate. (There are some Progressive Party and write-in candidates
who will appear on the November 7th ballot however, we chose, for a number of
reasons not to include those candidates in our General Election issue.), and 4.
They have already won their race by default (meaning no one from another
political party will be running against them in the November 7th General
Election). Candidates who fall into the number 4 category are as follows:
| Missouri |
State Senate Dist.
4 - Jeff Smith (D)
State
Representatives
Dist. 13 Bob Onder (R)
Dist. 58 Rodney Hubbard (D) - i
Dist. 61 Connie Johnson (D) - i
Dist. 66 Michael Vogt (D) - i
Dist. 70 John Bowman (D) - i
Dist. 71 Esther Haywood (D) - i
Dist. 72 Maria Chappelle-Nadal (D) - i
Dist. 74 Tony George (D) - i
Dist. 75 Bruce Darrough (D) - i
Dist. 76 Michael Spreng (D) - i
Dist. 77 Michael Corcoran (D) - i
Dist. 78 Clint Zweifel (D) - i
Dist. 80 Theodore Hoskins (D) - i
Dist. 81 Juanita Walton (D) - i
Dist. 83 Jake Zimmerman (D)
Dist. 84 Allen Icet (R) - i
Dist. 88 Neal St. Onge (R) - i
Dist. 89 Timothy Jones (R)
Dist. 100 Sue Schoemehl (D) - i
Dist. 103 Ron Casey (D) - i
Dist. 106 Steven Tilley (R) - i
Dist. 109 Kevin Threlkeld (R) - i
Dist. 110 Belinda Harris (D) - i
| Illinois |
US Cong. Dist. 12 Jerry Costello (D) - i
State Sen. Dist. 51 Frank Watson (R)
State Sen. Dist. 57 James Clayborne Jr. II (D)
State Sen. Dist. 58 David Luechtefeld (R)
State Rep. Dist. 37 Jim Watson (R) - i
State Rep. Dist. 38 Gary Hannig (D) - i
State Rep. Dist. 102 Ron
Stephens (R) - i
State Rep. Dist. 111 Daniel
Beiser (D)
State Rep. Dist. 113 Tom
Holbrook (D) - i
State Rep. Dist. 116 Dan
Reitz (D) - i
Score Your Candidate
To see whether or not you
agree with the candidate who is vying for your vote, you will need to compare
his or her answers to the questionnaire printed on page 15. We recommend that
you first list the answers of your favorite candidates on a separate piece of
paper then go to the questionnaire and compare their answers. This will save
you the time and effort of having to turn back and forth between the questionnaire
and your candidates’ answers.
On the following pages are the
responses to our General Election 2006 Candidate Questionnaire from candidates
running for office from the Republican, Democrat, and Libertarian parties
within our readership area.