ICFST== IL GOP
As predicted, Cornyn’s litmus test bit didn’t go over well with the purity of essence crowd:
Then, quite to my surprise, this past Monday, March 23, 2009 Senator Cornyn of Texas was heard heralding the very same thing—“no litmus test”. And to whom is he speaking of to the Main Stream Media—none other than Congressman Mark Kirk. Cornyn goes on to say “we need a moderate to win in a democrat-leaning State”.
I have a few problems with this “litmus test” rhetoric. First of all, the pro-life plank is part of the National GOP platform as well as the Illinois state GOP platform. Pro-family planks are also a part of the GOP platform, at both the federal and state level. Mark Kirk does not reflect the State party or the National party platform on either of these issues.
Secondly, the fact that party leadership would suggest there be no “litmus test” from one side of the mouth; and then from the other purport a seemingly self-serving statement that only a moderate can win, is in essence a “litmus test”. In other words, according to Senator Cornyn (and others) any viable candidate from Illinois need only apply if he/she is a social-moderate. Is this not a litmus test? But of course it’s your litmus test; and without question, it’s OK.
The answer–run to the right! Median voter theorem be damned.
The Democrats have offered up a fairly good situation even in a reliably blue state like Illinois with Blagojevich, Burris, and a state budget crisis. Yet again though, the IL GOP shows why they are the Washington Generals of Illinois.
But the Democrats aren’t content to let their good fortune go without making a little good fortune on top of it and the effort by social conservatives to mandate the election of State Committeemen gets some help in the form of Lou Lang.
“I’m trying to give the Republican Party what it has insisted for the last six or eight weeks it wants: open and transparent elections,” said Rep. Lou Lang, a Skokie Democrat who pushed for the change.
On the merits, the Republicans are correct–the state shouldn’t be able to tell a private political party how to operate. However, it sure is fun watching. The funnest bit yet was Chris Lauzen:
I’ve often had fun at Lauzen’s expense and I probably will again, but that’s not really so much the point about the above. The two sides of the ICFST dispute hate each other. Lauzen makes very clear what he is doing is to fight internal Republican corruption and just called the other side corrupt and a self-interested. Although, Lauzen does it in a very polite tone. What is funny is that either side thinks they can put together a 50% + 1 coalition with this kind if hatred.