March 2003

Denny Gets Mad!

Going to the Calpundit well again

Denny Hastert is reported to have said:

"What do you want me to do, call the President a liar? George Bush may screw his party. I don’t!" Hastert is reported to have said.

Mr. Fitzgerald is squirming because that means Hastert just might be pissed enough to back Andrew McKenna in the Illinois Republican primary. If Hastert and the President weren’t having problems, I think Rove could clear the field with a strong move–if he has alienated Hastert, he has no leverage.

One Liberal Hawk Sill on Board

But it looks like others are ready to jump ship. I’m the one not looking to jump ship.

Look, I don’t know what the hell the administration thinks it is doing pissing on many of our allies’ legs, but that doesn’t go to what I think the justification for taking out Saddam is. I believe that we will deal with him now or deal with him later. For a whole host of reasons I don’t believe deterrence will work. While Saddam may not be crazy, he isn’t very smart and deterrence requires full rationality on the part of an opponent and from his past actions it is clear that Saddam is not capable of processing information well.

Once I concluded deterrence is highly unlikely to work the question then becomes is there reason to wait? Well, usually there would be, but he is pursing weapons that would make any future conflict harder to fight.

I never had any illusions about Bush giving a damn about democracy (nor about Clinton’s fumbling in Europe as Daniel Drezner points out). Cleaning up Bush’s mess in Iraq, Turkey, Kurdistan (just wait) and several other Arab countries will fall to his successor. However, I’d rather have him get Saddam out of the way to make that fight less bloody and less calamitous.

By far, I’d like Dick Lugar, Bob Dole or John McCain executing this war and cleaning up after. Clearly, in any of those three cases we wouldn’t have alienated our allies and screwed up bribing Mexico and Turkey. And I’d have more trust in the post war Iraqi order. But I’m stuck with Bush.

Brazen George & the Combine

Kevin assumes that Republicans actually liked George Ryan and he is half-right. George Ryan ran as the most conservative Republican Gubernatorial candidate since at least 1972 (and I don’t even remember the ’72 candidate so don’t ask). He picked up some support from the wingnut faction of the party because of his role in killing the ERA years ago as Speaker of the House. He was also the first pro-life Republican Gubernatorial candidate who was pro-life since at least 1972 as well. On the other hand, his openness and overtures to gays and lesbians put the right wing on guard.

By the end of his administration the only people who liked him were death penalty opponents and those who directly owed him favors. Everyone running for office statewide except Judy Baar Topinka distanced themselves from him (oddly, she was the only winner). The beneficiaries of his patronage presumably still like them, but their lawyers have told them to shut up.

By the end of his term, conservatives in the Republican Party viewed him as a profligate spender (and he was), a Communie sympathizer for going to Cuba (actually he just understood what was good for agribidness), a soft on crime pinko of for the death penalty moratorium, a fricken’ evil bastard for the commutations, and a crook (and they are correct).

No Republican office holder is supporting any of this with the possible exception of Pate Philip, who to be pedantic, is no longer an office holder. Philip is implicated in the Fawell trial.

To a degree, these sort of shenanigans aren’t atypical in Illinois. Even between Republicans there have been disputes over last moment appointments by the outgoing Governor. Jim Edgar was criticized for a few in 1998. The person criticizing him?

George Ryan.

Ryan insisted it was his right.

Whether this is a continuing cycle is actually hard to tell. My sense is that Blagojevich won’t have the same leeway. Ryan was so brazen that many people just turned off the whole mess and stopped paying attention. Certainly some of it was that Republicans were losing almost all of their patronage positions, but the Party separated themselves from George so these were largely loyalty paybacks for him personally. In another group of appointees, some Democrats allied with Ryan were given positions as well.

It is always important to remember while there are two parties in Illinois, there is a large overlap of the two parties in the Combine–dealmakers in both parties who are happy to share the pork and patronage with members of the other party, as long as they get theirs. The come from all over the ideological spectrum and they have run the state largely since 1976 when Jim Thompson became governor. Many good things have happened during that time, but a great deal of scams have as well.

I would argue that often times elections in Illinois are the Combine versus reformers. Other times they are different flavors of the Combine. The Blagojevich-Jim Ryan election was probably an election between different flavors of the Combine. Blagojevich is showing some good signs of independence, but frankly, I don’t buy it.