2004

Endorsements, endorsements

ArchPundit March 1, 2004 2 Comments

Not yet, but I’m looking for a bit of balance. There will be an official ArchPundit endorsement per usual, but I’m generally impressed with most of the Democratic candidates and at least a couple of the Republican Candidates. So if you have a dog in the fight and would like to write an endorsement for them send me a note. I’m going to keep it to one per candidate so don’t write it first and send, let me know you are interested. I’ll post them along with my endorsements early next week.

Also–any of the Congressional Candidates who want some electronic press write me–I have a new feature coming that might be worth a try.

Strangely, I seldom hear from Republicans in Illinois, but they should feel welcome to submit for their candidate. In Missouri, I have a ton of Republican readers who comment fairly regularly. I have no idea why.

The e-mail is archpundit@yahoo.com (I haven’t added it to this blog yet–oops).

Okay, This One is Just Dumb

ArchPundit March 1, 2004 No Comments

Why is Hull even the focus of the story in the Trib today detailing ties to pharmaceutical companies?

Despite those stances, records show, Hull is a partner in trading companies with substantial investments tied to pharmaceutical interests. His financial statements filed with the Federal Election Commission show he is a partner in firms that trade securities and invest in stocks linked to Pfizer, Cardinal Health Inc. and Amgen Inc., three pharmaceutical companies. And he has invested in bonds that were converted from stocks of drugmakers and suppliers, the records show. The value of those bonds now is tied to the performance of the drug company stock.

Hull noted that he owns no direct stock ownership in pharmaceutical companies–and he holds only passive partnerships in funds that have investments that are linked to drug company stocks, mostly index funds.

To be sure, Hull, whose net worth is between $150 million and $600 million, has a vast portfolio of indirect investments in literally hundreds, if not thousands, of stocks. Most of Hull’s links to pharmaceuticals are found in index funds that contain top stocks and rise or fall based on the performance of indexes such as the Standard & Poor’s 500.

It’s a fair story to say, X has this kind of stock, but making him the focus is silly given both Obama and Hynes have such ties in mutual funds and in campaign donations.

The key quote is “Despite those stances”. Hull may own stock, but he appears to be taking positions that at least those companies claim will hurt them. Is a reverse conflict of interest really worth the focus of the story?

Hull Breach

ArchPundit March 1, 2004 No Comments

While I was preparing the new site, Eric Zorn covered the Hull story quite well.

The weblog has the story as it developed

The first column

The second column

I was tempted to make a joke about throwing the remote at the TV everytime our esteemed President squints, but the subject is quite serious.

The evidence is that Blair Hull made a mistake during a highly contentious divorce. A serious mistake, but a one-time mistake. I do not think it is disqualifying, but it does show the problem that candidates often fail to address early.

Bush did it with the DUI and the with the military records (may still be doing it in that case). If you have a mistake in your past and you are running for office, prepare a file with all of the documentation and give it to the press about two weeks after you announce-after the initial bounce and before serious campaigning starts. If the problem isn’t serious, it goes away and you earn credit for being forthright. If you wait, is surprises you at the worst possible moment everytime.

Bush–72 hours before the election while momentum was already swinging the other way. Hull–the minute he took the frontrunner position and knocked him off message.

I tend to buy both explanations by these candidates–they wanted to keep family matters private. It doesn’t make it any less stupid though. The press will find out and you will look like you are trying to hide something by not going through full disclosure. It is just dumb and it takes the matter out of your control and makes it look like you aren’t fully honest. More than that, once the heat of the campaign hits, candidates always end up releasing the records, always. Even if it is in the campaign such as the President’s military record.

One defense is that such vetting discourages people from running and that it sets a standard of having a perfect record. I don’t buy it for two reasons.

First, the number of people with an ego to seek the US Senate is never in short supply. Frankly, eating bad chicken dinners and listening to annoying people ask if you can fix their potholes are a far greater deterrence than a bit of personal ridicule.

Second, I think we are moving to a period where blemishes are okay, as long as you are honest and forthright about them. Rauschenberger has a DUI and by simply taking responsibility for it, he took control of the issue. That isn’t hurting him in this election, though the empty suit brigade ahead of him all have clean records.

The final thing to consider is that Hull and his ex-wife may know that the actual violence was a one-time event, but the voters didn’t. The voters have a right to know if the candidate did regularly abuse his wife. That is a serious character issue and a serious illegal act–far different than philandering by a certain ex-President. The only way for voters to determine if it is serious is to see the record and now they have.

Illinois Senate Republican Roll Call

ArchPundit March 1, 2004 No Comments

1. Jack Ryan–stunningly avoiding any sort of critical view by the press. For a guy with no history in public life this is astonishing–same with Hull until the divorce story hit.

2. Oberweis–but heading down. Nativism isn’t even selling at the Leader. Angry commercials in a crowded field don’t target anyone specific and bring down your own numbers. But I still want my ice cream for life.

3. McKenna–has papered over some problems with social conservatives, but can’t seem to get much traction. Favorite of the combine crowd in this field, but again, an unknown quantity. Would make deals and bring home the pork.

4. Rauschenberger–the travesty of the cycle so far. Along with Obama the most experienced and thoughtful candidates out there. Don’t get me wrong, I disagree with him on most issues, but he is a quality guy and a quality candidate. That such a serious candidate has this hard of a time getting attention is just wrong.

5. Borling–nice guy, no traction with social conservatives and in today’s Illinois Republican Party, that is the end.

6. Wright–no traction–try running and winning a state lege seat. Social conservatives like you.

7. Kathuria–It would appear the Trib article saying he was full of himself was true in this campaign as well. Go back and update the resume.

Illinois Senate Democratic Roll Call

ArchPundit March 1, 2004 1 Comment

Pre Endorsement edition!

1. Obama–good week. Took the lead in some polls and is receiving good press all around.

2. Hull– A hullava week, but still not in that bad of a spot. Should have released the records early, but hey, they all make that mistake. Records show a bad relationship, but a divorce tells us that already. One case of violent behavior is appalling, but not a pattern. Biggest problem–it took him off message when he should have been running around touting himself as the frontrunner. Remember, has millions and isn’t afraid to use it.

3. Hynes–Kass claims it is a low key strategy. I say he is being outgunned in free media by Obama and paid by Hull. Don’t underestimate the machine’s ability to turn out votes, but he needs to do something quickly or the downstate support is going to fade.

4. Chico–running a decent campaign, but simply not a high enough profile to win. Really is running on a lot of good ideas, but drowned out by the big three.

5. Pappas–And I thought Jim Ryan ran a bad campaign. Some suggest this is to raise her profile for a run at Cook County Board President. If that is the case, this campaign is so bad it might hurt those chances.

6. Skinner–spirited, but just not going anywhere. Run for the state house Nancy.

7. Washington–that is a helleva way to kill one’s political career.

Roll Call Comment Period

ArchPundit February 27, 2004 3 Comments

It’s been a busy week–comment on who you think is up and who is down. Roll call won’t be up until the evening. Use the comments below for both Republicans and Democrats.