Okay, now we’re getting somewhere.
As you know, Peter Roskam, who’s running to succeed Henry Hyde in Illinois’ 6th district is one of the seven 
congressional candidates currently on our “Straight Answer Wanted” list of Social Security phase-out weasels. And he and Tom Kean (R-NJ) are currently the subjects of our latest contest to see who can be the first to find out where these two guys stand on the issue of whether or not to phase out Social Security.
Anyway, as TPM Reader RC points out, getting Roskam to come clean on where he stands will not be an easy task. Roskam is currently in the Illinois state senate. And last year state Sens. Martinez, Collins and Hunter introduced a resolution calling on Congress to oppose private accounts, i.e., to oppose the Bush plan which was then still before Congress.
That gave state senators an opportunity to go on the record on whether they opposing phasing out Social Security or supported it. The vote was 32 Yeas (i.e., they opposed phase-out) and 19 Nays (meaning they supported it.)
So how’d Peter Roskam vote? Well, you can see the roll call here. He decided duck out that day. He’s down there as “NV”.
The vote was on May 20th, 2005, four days after Roskam announced his candidacy for the House seat on May 16th. So you can see why Roskam decided not to make it in that day.
(Update: As TPM Reader TCB notes, Roskam made it to plenty of other votes the same day. He just bailed when the Social Security vote came up.)
Now, the current contest prize for finding out where Roskam stands is the TPM t-shirt and the TPM mug. But clearly Roskam is some sort of arch-weasel on Social Security and it’ll be a profound challenge to ever get him to come clean. After all, Tom Kean in New Jersey showed up for a similar vote in the New Jersey state senate not once but twice. So, in light of Roskam’s extenuating weaselhood we’re upping the bounty for a t-shirt and a mug to a TPM t-shirt and two TPM mugs.
So if you’re up for a challenge, see if you can get a straight answer out of Roskam. See the contest rules here for further details.
