Call It A Comeback
Is tied to direct mail to the party faithful. While I don’t think it will be enough, Jack!’s strategy is based on big media buys which are terribly inefficient in a low turnout primary. Expect Rauschenberger to do better than expected and be in-line to be a compromise candidate for Governor or the choice for Treasurer by the Republicans in 2006.
Wow, indictments aren’t anything new in Chicago politics, but this isn’t against the usual suspects.
ICFST==Illinois Circular Firing Squad Team==Illinois Republican Party
Corvax suggested another foray into the Illinois Leader forums and loe and behold, they are tearing apart Edgar.
It’s funny. How do you win an election when you label half the party as evil?
Other enlightening threads include questiong John Borling’s character. That is especially smarmy.
Potentially, the firestorm Rich Miller predicted is going to come from McKenna
–divorce issues for Ryan
–tax issues for Ryan
–further ties to health care providers who do abortions
None of the candidates, Rich Miller is getting good press in the national publications as the disher of dirt on the race. The Hotline has picked up several pieces. This comes after Eric Zorn suggested he was in line to take the place of Steve Neal as the state’s best political columnist.
That said, there is another good analyst who is underrated because he writes for a Missouri paper.
1. Obama. Got a buzz now with the national press picking up his story. Hynes is attacking–and probably a fair attack about why Obama didn’t speak up about the profligate spending under George Ryan. That’s a clean hit as far as I’m concerned.
2. Hynes. Trying to find a way to take Obama down without going negative. It isn’t easy. Needs ground troops and probably rain.
3. Hull. Seems to have rebounded (and Glenn isn’t getting in for that Jeri Ryan troll), but not sure it is enough. As independent polls are coming to a close, the question is will his numbers jump up or just maintain a small increase? Hard to get in to the dialogue when Obama is dominating the free press.
4. Pappas. Her sense of humor is showing, but probably too late. While the debate performances are a problem, I think she just mistimed a bunch of the campaign and never got on track. She still has a future (that should bring some comments in)
5. Chico and the Ice Cream Man. Gives a little on Oberweis as do the other candidates. If Republicans see Democrats attacking Oberweis will they switch thinking he must be doing something right? We can only hope.
6. Skinner. Fading….
7. Washington. Now that is a dead political career.
Google News is pretty indispensable during this kind of race, but what is kind of cool about it is that I know the Kenyan press is covering the race because Obama’s father was from Kenya.
Hull answers a question about whether he was treated for substance abuse.
Over. But I’m curious about the claim that he refused to tell the press where he would appear. I get his daily schedule from the campaign. It wasn’t hard to have it done, so what is Channel 7’s problem? This smacks of any unfair backhanded slap at him.
Zorn offers a very good take on the whole issue, but I’m still curious about why Channel 7 is having such a hard time figuring out where he would be. Am I to understand that a guy with an obsessive interest in Illinois politics who runs a web site narrowcast for others with similar interests is better able to track candidates than people who do this for a profession?
1. Jack! Polls consistently have him up, but some sense that the support isn’t very deep.
2. Rauschenberger. Call me delusional, I don’t care. Anyone doing this well with newspaper editors–a notoriously cynical lot, should do better than 8 percent.
3. Oberweis. May push crazy Tancredo into the Colorado race given Salazar a good clean shot now that Udall backed out.
4. McKenna. I hope he is the one who starts slinging mud because he needs something to make him even the slightest bit interesting.
5. Borling. Bombing Jack!
6. Wright. Save any cash for the next race.
7. Kathuria. Circling the Drain
Rumors of an explosion of nastiness have been reported–frankly this race needs it.
While I don’t have some elaborate comments policy, I do from time to time delete comments. It doesn’t mean I’m necessarily mad, but it does mean there is information that I have no way to corroborate or it is personally critical of other posters. I just deleted two comments because they contained rumors about the personal life of one of the Senate Candidates. I understand that the poster was probably thinking out loud more than criticizing the candidate, but while I don’t take responsibility for comments, I do not feel uncomfortable having comments that impugn someone’s character without any hard evidence. So comment away in good taste and if you go to far, I’ll disappear them without incident.
For ads to the right….
For Grassroots Endorsements….
For Peanut Gallery Endorsements… (satirical–see TCF’s hysterical one for Oberweis–bonus points for Edelweis references)
ArchPundit