Illinois Senate

A Long Walk Off a Short Pier

ArchPundit June 22, 2004 2 Comments

Or

“We did go to one avant-garde nightclub in Paris”

First, Jack lied. Regardless of the veracity–that is an embarrassing revelation. Interestingly, he is refusing to answer the question of whether this is embarrassing as if that is friggen obvious. Either your ex-wife lied about your sex life or you tried to coerce her to have sex in “avante-garde” nightclubs.

The hysterical thing about the whole deal is pointed out in today’s Capitol Fax (subscription required). Miller:

WORST PRESS CONFERENCE EVER Which political genius in Jack Ryan’s campaign scheduled a dramatic release of unbelievably damaging information on a Monday? The way this is done is you drop a ton of documents on the press corps late Friday afternoon and get the heck out of Dodge. Hopefully, the whole thing blows over by Monday, when people are paying attention again. Now, Ryan’s facing a whole week of bad news, if he’s lucky.

In Team Jack!’s defense, you can’t make a turd smell good, but not angling for a Friday release is perhaps the biggest mistake of a mistake prone campaign next to not addressing this garbage, say back last July so it could blow over.

But no, we had to do this the hard way. The only problem now is that it gives the Republicans the time to force him from the ballot (well from my perspective a problem) and replace him. While there is no statute relevant to replacing him, it is likely that a judge would institute whomever the Republican Party’s Central Committee approved. Edgar is reportedly furious with a capital A for “avante-garde” my ass for being lied to by Jack! about the content of the files. Jack! reportedly only told Edgar his side of the story. As Miller pointed out elsewhere in today’s Fax:

Needless to say, I doubt Brenda Edgar approves of this sort of behavior, even if it is only alleged behavior and even though the former Mrs. Ryan issued a statement yesterday calling her ex a good man and a loving father. Mrs. Edgar is a cocoa and cookies kind of woman. As far as I could tell, cages, whips and mattresses in cubicles were not allowed at the governor’s mansion when she was around. Sources say that Jim Edgar is one furious man right now, and probably still a little sore from having to sleep on the couch last night. “You dragged my good name into THIS?!” I pity the fool.

Unfortunately, Edgar might be mad enough to take the nomination if/When Jack! steps down from the ballot. The other rumor—Big Jim!

Talk about your slap down between the old and the new. I don’t know who wins that race, but I want to be around to watch it. I’d have to give it to Barack on youth and contrast and Big Jim being out of the spotlight for so long as well as demographic changes in Illinois. If either man happens, Barack needs cash. Badly. On the good side, I think we could say goodbye to any ads on either side about gay and lesbian rights.

Rauschenberger is probably choice three and is playing the loyal foot soldier poo-pooing the claims.

Now doesn’t Jack! take on a whole new meaning?

That’ll Hurt the Team

ArchPundit June 18, 2004 3 Comments

Okay, so let’s just say that you decide you are going to run for high office. You may have a thousand reasons for doing so, but you want to be Senator and an opening comes along. You jump in, make a lot of noise, position yourself interestingly and have a great shot of winning your party’s primary though you would face an uphill struggle a state that is increasingly leaning the other ideological direction.

But you have some embarrassing information in your background. What do you do?

Disclose it, getting it out early in the election cycle and avoiding being sandbagged with it in an election? No. Of course, not.

You get the records sealed and assume the information is safely tucked away. This is a dumb assumption given your name has been out there as a candidate for a while and people always get ready for a strong challenger. But then the press decides they should have access and sue for release. Do you fight it? Yes. Why? Because now you are in a box. Then you say that there is nothing embarrassing in the files. A dumb answer.

Because when the judge says he’s going to release a big section of the file. You say:

“Is there anything in there that might be embarrassing to me? Maybe. But that’s not the criterion.”

So now you have lied to the media that already is annoyed with a campaign tone that was at least clumsily negative and has been rather poorly run. You have apparently lied to the Speaker of the House of Reps, the Senate Majority Leader and other party leaders in the State.

So assume the best at this point and say you have some minor embarrassments in the file–who has your back? No one. You have to fight it off and have character whispered about for months. And you are still off message talking about things that only highlight one of the strengths of your opponent–a remarkably charming family.

Say it is more than just a little embarrassing? Be expecting a call from the Illinois GOP Leadership to step down from the ticket and essentially asking for your head. Of course with no direct law to replace you, they have to rely on the Courts to let them to replace you, further angering them and further making this campaign season a long one for them. Jack Ryan will be a curse word in the IL GOP under this scenario.

In bizarro world, a few court decisions could easily land the GOP without a Senate Candidate or a Presidential Candidate for the fall election–something that would devestate down ballot races–which is what they care about, because Jack, they’ve already written you off.

New Senate Poll

ArchPundit June 10, 2004 4 Comments

Obama (D) 50%
Ryan (R) 39%
Other/Undecided 10%

Data Collected 6/7/04 – 6/9/04
Geography State of Illinois
Sample Population 736 Likely Voters
Margin of Error 3.7%
Client WBBM-TV Chicago
KSDK-TV St. Louis

The significant differences are on Jack’s numbers which are changing between polls. My guess on this is the method to determine likely voters or how hard they push people to make a choice is the key difference–IOW light leaners probably account for his better numbers. This early I tend to think such voters aren’t good to include, but it’s impossible to tell without further information. While Jack!’s e-mail is crowing about this, they are facing a non-incumbent at 50% or better. Behind the press releases that has to have them worried.

Survey USA are automated polls.

New Verb: LaHoodwinking

ArchPundit June 9, 2004 5 Comments

Ryan Suffers another Lahoodwinking as Ray wasn’t satisfied enough with his blast at Ryan so he added to it. Reported in Copley sources, but I can’t find the damn on-line versions (Curses you Copley–but kudos to the tip)

LaHood blasts Ryan’s Senate campaign

Dori Meiner – Copley News Service

Springfield State Journal-Register

Wednesday, June 9, 2004

WASHINGTON – Rep. Ray LaHood, R-Peoria, on Tuesday blasted GOP Senate candidate Jack Ryan’s campaign strategy, saying “he’s got to get his act together” and urging the first-time candidate to consult with more experienced politicians.

LaHood said he advised Ryan in a telephone conversation on Tuesday to “get control of the campaign.”

The phone conversation came after LaHood’s harsh assessment of Ryan’s campaign against Democratic state Sen. Barack Obama appeared in an article in the Capitol Hill newspaper The Hill.

“He’s running a kind of bonehead campaign right now,” the publication quoted LaHood as saying of Ryan. “This idea of having one of his staffers trail around Obama and take video pictures of him at all of his events is about the stupidest thing I’ve ever seen in a high-profile campaign, and it’s been publicized all over Illinois and when people in our party ask what’s going on I tell them it’s ridiculous.”

Elaborating in an interview with Copley News Service on Tuesday, LaHood

said: “Whoever came up with the idea of trailing his political opponent with a video camera ought to be fired. It’s ridiculous. That’s not a way to run a campaign.”

LaHood chalked up Ryan’s recent gaffes to his political inexperience.

“Part of the problem is he’s never been involved in politics and, you know, you can’t let your staff dictate what you do,” LaHood said.

“The incident of trailing your opponent with a video camera is idiotic. All he has to do is pick up a newspaper and find out how Obama feels about the issues. Or listen to a radio interview,” LaHood said. “I think part of it is political naivete, never being involved. But, my gosh, he won a primary.”

LaHood supported Andrew McKenna in the Republican primary, but now said he supports Ryan.

LaHood said there’s still time for Ryan to turn things around before the November election.

“I think we have an understanding,” LaHood said. “He knows that I’m committed to helping him win, and I’m committed to helping him raise money.

But he’s got to get his act together.”

LaHood said he met Saturday with a group of “die-hard Republicans” in Peoria and that he was bombarded with complaints about Ryan’s campaign.

“There’s a lot of people who want Jack Ryan to win, but he’s got to run a good campaign. It’s got to be on the issues,” LaHood said.

Ryan spokeswoman Kelli Phiel had little to say about LaHood’s criticisms other than to defend the practice of following opponents as common.

“We did see it as a common practice that has been used on national campaigns before,” Phiel said. “We were doing it specifically to track Mr. Obama’s public comments in public places and to ensure he had a consistent message.

That was our only intention, our only motivation.”

The incident gained widespread media attention after Obama described the Ryan cameraman as a “stalker.”

The irony is that LaHood was a staffer for years under Michels, but generally a good critique of a bad campaign so far. Then again, Dan Proft’s idea to attack Watson and Topinka might be bearing some bitter fruit.

Jack and Guns

ArchPundit June 9, 2004 No Comments

Berkowitz also responds on Jack’s views on gun control which is pretty interesting:

Archpundit, that might be too strong an inference by you. The general issues above come up in part with respect to closing the gun show loophole, which allows guns to be sold without the background check that is required by gun stores. If a three day waiting period is imposed on trade shows, that would close down the trade shows, many of which only last for about two days. So, the instant background check technology allows the gun shows to exist without (1) being used as a loophole for “bad guy,” sellers and buyers of guns to avoid the background check requirement and (2) without infringing on the Second Amendment.

It’s hard to see how a 24/72 hour waiting period would infringe on the 2nd Amendment even if you see it as a personal right (something the Courts don’t do). But more troubling to me is why is it that buying at a trade show should be privileged? What is the reasoning there? Because of convenience? Already it is inconvenient for many people who live farther away from where they want to buy a gun. For long guns and rural hunters it is seldom just 24 hours before they can pick up their rifle or shotgun.

This also avoids the Illinois law that requires the federal background check, but also a check with the state police. The state check isn’t instant, though it is usually pretty fast. As I read the law, those still have to be performed by federal licensed dealers. Individual sales are allowed without background checks (even though such a system would be easy in Illinois and the $3 fee insignificant).

Gun regulations in Illinois are rather mild–tougher than most states, but it is hard to imagine that any hunter has lost a day of hunting to Illinois regulations or that anyone looking to protect themselves have been impaired by the hand gun waiting period or having to get an FOID card (which is far longer than 72 hours). If Jack thinks they are too strong, that would put him out of the mainstream with most Illinois voters—something that a guy calling his opponent at radical might want to think about.

Serious Question For Berkowitz

ArchPundit June 8, 2004 No Comments

He asks Jack Ryan about his views on gun control and Jack gives reasonably decent answers. The question I have though is that Jack has said he wants background checks that are instant–would that include a law preempting Illinois waiting periods of 72 hours for hand guns and 24 hours for long guns? Or preempting the FOID requirement?

From his issue page he says:

uick and instant background checks that are not de facto waiting periods are a first step towards guaranteeing the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens while at the same time keeping firearms away from those who shouldn?t have them.

To me, this reads as if Ryan doesn’t support current Illinois law and that is perhaps arcane, but very interesting.

The interview also goes into some very good details on vouchers that people should take a look at if they have time to think through what is being said. Jack isn’t unreasonable in terms of understanding the level of costs, though accountability still needs to be present (no one touched that so no assumptions are made about whether Ryan has good or bad ideas there).

Looks Like Both Campaigns Visit the Leader Board

ArchPundit June 8, 2004 2 Comments

Message by mayerbrown on 08 June 2004 at 5:48 am – IP: 68.20.207.214
Location: United States Joined: 15 January 2004 Posts: 23 Profile Search Quote
Well this is interesting…not sure which is more interesting, that people think JACKS! file will go away, or that anyone really cares what that cranky, bitter old fart Tom Roeser thinks. You have to wonder why they run his column in the Saturday SunTimes….yeah, that’s a highly read edition.

“His eyes are too close together”

===================

Search results for: 68.20.207.214

Ameritech Electronic Commerce NET-AMER-682000 (NET-68-20-0-0-1)
68.20.0.0 – 68.23.255.255
Jack Ryan SBC068020207208030718 (NET-68-20-207-208-1)
68.20.207.208 – 68.20.207.215

# ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2004-06-07 19:15
# Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN’s WHOIS database.

Circle Up and Fire!

ArchPundit June 8, 2004 No Comments

Ray LaHood is great. Who else could could turn the guns inward just as Jack! was starting to get out from behind recent problems? The Hill covers LaHood’s comments on the Ryan strategery to date and they aren’t pretty.

?He?s running kind of a bonehead campaign right now,? LaHood said of Ryan. ?This idea of having one of his staffers trail around Obama and take video pictures of him at all of his events is about the stupidest thing I?ve ever seen in a high-profile campaign, and it?s been publicized all over Illinois, and when people in our party ask what?s going on I tell them it?s ridiculous.?

The fossil in the 8th District offers up this defense:

Rep. Phil Crane (R-Ill.), who attended a fundraiser Friday for Ryan featuring Vice President Dick Cheney, said Ryan?s flagging campaign is the fault of the Illinois Republican Party, not Ryan.

?Our party has been in a state of disarray for many years, beginning with the scandal down in Springfield,? Crane said, referring to the corruption controversy surrounding former GOP Gov. George Ryan, who is no relation to Jack Ryan. Crane added that the scandal ?has caused a lot of people to be disenchanted. Jack Ryan is a dynamo out on the hustings.?

Kevin McCullough: Stupid or Dishonest

ArchPundit June 8, 2004 2 Comments

In his most recent tirade at the Leader he attacks Barack Obama for supporting suspect classification based on sexual orientation for employment, housing and other public interactions.

Obama’s turn in the legislature has been footnoted with radical initiatives. He was co-sponsor to the most radical pro-homosexual legislation to be put forward in the Illinois state senate – SB101. The bill actually attempted to have homosexual, lesbian, bisexual, and trans-gendered individuals added to the Illinois civil rights act.

This bill would have equated active homosexual behavior to the same status as being born with African, Latino, or Asian, DNA. It also would have opened the door to “Homosexual Affirmative Action” allowing people preference in jobs, housing, or even getting married – because of homosexual behavior. On his campaign web-site Obama had posted his clear intentions of furthering this agenda.

This agenda means you can’t fire or hire someone based on who they love. You can’t discriminate in housing based on who someone loves. That’s all. It isn’t affirmative action at all–that is a lie. Suspect classification means that to differentiate based on the characteristic you have to meet a high burden of proof that such a distinction serves a purpose. We offer that protection to people due to their race, their religion, their gender, their national background and more.

How radical is this legislation? It is so radical that local ordinances similar to it have been passed in that bastion of radicalism Normal, Illinois. In Bloomington too. In Peoria.

Of course, Kevin is trying to terrify you with his claims of the horror of equal treatment, but he slips up and implies that marriage is included in SB 101. It is not.

And, in fact, Obama doesn’t support gay marriage. He supports civil unions that allow life long partners to enter into contracts that allow them to share the same rights as married folks. But not call it marriage. And he thinks federal benefits ought to be available to those in such unions so he opposes the Defense of Marriage Act.

He believes in limited government where adults in consensual, loving relationships are allowed to decide for themselves what is moral.

Who Does Schoenberg Like Least?

ArchPundit June 5, 2004 3 Comments

It’s hard to say, though Rod is probably ahead of Jack! right now, but he is quickly developing a dislike of both of them similar to the late Steve Neal’s deep dislike of Dick Durbin and Peter Fitzgerald.

In Thursday’s column he takes on Jack!’s new communications director.

# First, understand why your opponent has problems with significant elements of his base, and drive wedges where you can, to the maximum extent possible;

# “Second, recognize that it is not your campaign’s job to tell the objective truth, it’s your campaign’s job to tell the version of the truth that puts your opponent in the worst light possible (it’s his campaign’s job, after all, to do the same to you);

# “Third, don’t get suckered into the trap of only talking about issues the media says are important – instead, choose the issue matrix over which you want to wage war, and stick to it no matter what;

# “And fourth, if need be, if you can’t make a legitimate argument against your opponent on a key issue, use your opponent’s party’s position on the issue as the battleground, and wrap it around his neck. Make him pay for the sins of his party. Guilt by association still works, so don’t be shy in exploiting it.”

The problem with the Ryan campaign is every time they put out a fire, another story pops up about how it is running essentially a negative campaign and getting it from enunciating any message of its own.

There are two sides to that. Jack! partisans can point out this is lazy journalism looking to fit the evidence to the preconceived story. To a degree that has some merit, though I wouldn’t tar Schoenberg with that claim.

The flip side is if the shoe fits…

And Jack! is making the shoe fit a bit too easily.

Case in point from the column:

But then what does a May 26 news release from the Ryan campaign say about the kind of campaign Ryan wants to run? The release, titled “Knock, knock. Who’s there? Obama, the criminals’ good friend,” got personal about Ryan’s Democratic opponent, BARACK OBAMA.

Obama, now a state senator, voted against a bill in the legislature that would allow people to defend themselves against local ordinances banning gun possession if they have to use a gun to protect themselves on their own property.

“Once again, Barack Obama has shown his true colors,” the release quotes Pascoe. “He’s an outside-the-mainstream, weak-on-crime liberal who cares more for the rights of criminals than he does for those of law-abiding citizens.”

Jack! has never defined himself in any sense of what he stands for to the public. Yes, we can go to his website and see his issue positions, but despite a fairly good bio to run on, since the primary it has been all attack all the time instead of defining himself, locking up his base and then going to war over the center–which in Illinois is slightly to the left.

The real story appears to be at the top and it is tied back to everything that is loony in Conservative Republican Politics in Illinois–the Illinois Leader and its co-founder Dan Proft:

After the second column, Proft let me know in a 1 1/2-page e-mail that he wasn’t happy.

“Barack, er uh, I mean Bernie,” it began.

“I’m willing to try and do damage control for you with your friends in the Democratic Party but I don’t know … people are expressing a lot of disappointment with you for your personal assault on Bill Clinton. … But I stood up for you, I said, ‘Bernie is a good Democrat. … I mean, look at all the water he’s carrying for Sen. Obama.'”

Proft said he was embarrassed for me because I let Obama “get away” with his explanation of his vote against the fees, and he wondered why I didn’t press Obama on the budget problems of the Democrats now running the state.

“I know you’re loathe (sic) to report on any infighting among the Democrat hegemons much less make Obama have to answer any difficult questions about who’s right. …”

Well, it’s always nice to know they’re reading your stuff. But Proft may have missed some of the not-so-glowing columns I’ve written about the style and “substance” of Gov. ROD BLAGOJEVICH, who happens to be a Democrat.

Antagonizing the press is generally a really bad strategy. Of course, Proft was probably the guy who decided an unsigned editorial in the attacking Judy Baar Topinka and Frank Watson would be a good idea.

You get a mighty small coalition as a Republican if Frank Watson is too conciliatory.

The ultimate problem though? Staffers keep get press over the candidate. That should never, ever happen. I know other campaigns do everything they can to avoid that.