ArchPundit

Call It A Comeback

June 2006

Uncategorized

Speaking of Ignoring the Infrastructure

ArchPundit 0 Comment

Rick has some points about the state of the Illinois Democratic Party in helping recruit candidates broadly.

And as Rich points out, the web site is a miserable failure.

From Marin:

Giannoulias, 30, is the guy the party didn’t endorse but who won the March 21 primary anyway. And unless Illinois Dems are just awfully slow in updating their Web site, his absence suggests the continuing antagonism that arose from his candidacy. The chairman of the Illinois Democratic Party, House Speaker Michael Madigan, backed Knox County State’s Attorney Paul Mangieri instead.

“Unless the Illinois Dems are just awfully slwo in updating their website”

I’m actually quite happy they update the events section, but most of the site hasn’t changed in months. Nothing new since March at least and for some time I don’t think Obama or Bean were listed–like until later 2005.

I’m not sure Alexi is getting thrown under the bus, but the general expectation is he fell down in front of it and why bother at this point.

Illinois Congressional Races

Social Security Privatization

ArchPundit 2 Comments

Patterson goes off the rails a bit making fun of a Duckworth press release that bothers to note that Representative Jim McCrery of Louisiana who chairs the Ways and Means Committee’s Subcommittee on Social Security just said his top priority for 2007 was Social Security privatization.

McCrery is likely to be Chair of Ways and Means if Republicans retain a majority.

Patterson thinks it’s odd because the evidence is that Roskam skipped a vote on privatization in the State House that was largely for Democratic electoral purposes, but also is a serious dilemma for the state if benefits for the elderly are reduced.

He then makes fun of the exercise as being like the game 7 Degrees of Kevin Bacon, but the really odd thing here is he didn’t get Roskam on record as to what sort of changes he’d support in Social Security. In the public record there isn’t anything directly pinning down Roskam on whether he’d support McCrery’s bill. Why isn’t Roskam’s position the first thing to clarify and report?

It’s not exactly absurd to point out what Roskam’s allies want in relation to Social Security. He’s signed the Americans for Tax Reform pledge, he’s close to the Eagle Forum, and generally a darling of conservatives. There’s nothing inherently wrong with any of this, but those connections sure seem to point out what his position is.

One of the leaders of his party, the man who is likely to have one of the most powerful chairmanships in DC, just said Social Security privatization is a high priority for 2007. Challenging Roskam on that issue is fair game–if Roskam doesn’t agree with his allies, than he can say it.

The shot at the end at Madigan is a bit bizarre given Tom Cross (not really wrong) made fun of him for having a series of workshops designed to target the Social Security privatization plans in Congress.

In this case, Madigan isn’t even close to the same thing as McCrery. Madigan hardly ever gets involved in Congressional Elections unless it is a key ally and is one the reason for the incumbent friendly remap in 2002. He spends his time worrying about the State House seats. He hasn’t given her any money and I don’t think Steve Brown has even done a press release on the race.

The real issue here for someone trying to help voters figure out this race is what the hell is Roskam’s position? I’m as cynical as the next guy when it comes to campaign press releases, but in this case, it makes an important distinction that voters deserve to know.

Uncategorized

Poor John O’Connor

ArchPundit 0 Comment

He even goes after a Democratic Adminstratin and still falls short of a non-story in relation to Harry Reid in the AP’s weekly

He’s the guy who reported on 1800 state job clout list in Illinois, but didn’t come close to beating a non-scandal in Nevada.

I don’t think I actually linked to O’Connor’s piece, but largely because I thought it was sufficiently covered in the press as to be redundant here. Perhaps if I attack him next time, it’ll get him better notice from the superiors and better coverage of a real story…

What bothers me about this is the notion that because Solomon got the attention he was doing a good job. In reality, O’Connor was overlooked because he did a good job of actually finding a problem in goverment and pointing it out.

Uncategorized

The National Beat

ArchPundit 0 Comment

Unfortunately, Chet Culver won the Iowa Democratic nomination for Governor–while I’d still say he’s the favorite over Nussle given the political climate, he’s not nearly as strong as Mike Blouin. Braley won in the 1st CD and will be a good candidate. The real key is more Dems turned out than Republicans in the race which is a reasonable sign of intensity.

In Montana Tester won after Morrison ran into many problems including running a horrible campaign. Either would beat Burns who is the primary Senator tied to Abramoff. Much bigger Dem turnout than four years ago which is a good sign. Unfortunately, Markos still thinks Hull was the establishment candidate in 2004 against Obama. In reality, the establishment candidate was Dan Hynes who is a great guy, but not as good as Obama.

Markos and I have discussed this so the note to him is good natured, but let’s remember what happened in 2004. For the vast majority of the race, Hynes was the presumptive front-runner. Despite favoring Obama, I had to put Hynes as the frontrunner into January of 2004 with only Hull’s media blitz displacing him from my cattle calls. Even then, I’d argue Obama had more momentum than most thought, but few, except SEIU’s political team, thought he’d do as well as he did.

The point being, all the early national expectation was on Hynes, not Hull. Hull actually did a pretty good job of garnering state wide support, but the revelations late in the campaign regarding him and his wife hurt him–though I’m still not sure he would have won.

In California, bad turnout in the Dem Primary for Governor probably kills Busby as it stands now. Given the amount of money the GOP put into the race, it’s still a hell of a run. Billbray only beat his registration numbers by 4 percent.

In Illinois that matters a lot–the 6th District showed a strong Republican self-identification of 24 percent though a high number of leaners with 25 percent. Depending upon how California’s registration number correlate to leaners and strong partisans, it makes IL-06 a tough race. It also makes a race like Kirk’s especially tough in a Democratic District.

In Alabama, both Roy Moore and indicted former Governor Siegelman lost. Both parties showed a minimum of sanity at least.

Presidential Race

My Favorite Ad of the 2008 Cycle

ArchPundit 1 Comment

Mark Warner has bought some space. I’m a huge unabashed fan so click on the ad and take a look at Warner’s Foward Together PAC.

While I’m usually afraid of hitting my candidates this early due to many, many years of heartbreak, Warner is such a good candidate, I’m happy to push him this early. Of course, if Obama were to run, my support would be there, but I would strongly advise against such a run. Warner is a natural, and he is, as the site points out, a Map Changer. He also staked his Governorship on improving education funding from a structural perspective and did it in a red state.

Fundie Fun

Petey Goes Polygamous

ArchPundit 10 Comments

Any chance he’ll head out to Utah to do some of his undercover research?

There’s a small problem with his article:

The endgame of gay activists is to strip the Boy Scouts (and by extension, any other organization that morally opposes gay marriage) of its tax-exempt status under both federal and state law.

Except 501 (c) 3 status isn’t what the Boy Scouts have been prevented from being sponsored by government entities in some places.

Scouts have been prevented from being sponsored by government agencies because of their discrimination policies. Even then they get equal access to government property under federal law that any other group gets, they just don’t get government sponsorship given they have specific religious tenants they require members to hold.

Churches would still have equal access to public facilities as they do now, but just as now, they couldn’t be sponsored by a government agency–the same restriction on the Boy Scouts in some states. Furthermore, churches may choose to marry only who they wish including the ability to discriminate on interracial marriages. No law prohibits churches from discrimination based on race even if they choose 501 (c) 3 status.

Where organizations are discriminated upon based on policies towards race is if they choose to accept federal funding such as Bob Jones University when it banned interracial relationships or if a church wants to carry out a faith based charity that is funded by government funds.

« Previous Page — Next Page »

You Missed

Blog

Trump Campaign “Field”

Blog

Trying 2

Blog

Don’t Call It A Comeback

Uncategorized

More Like This