Oh my, the Fitzgerald challenge is getting ugly.
"I’m thinking about trying to make sure Peter has an opponent," LaHood told the Sun-Times. "I think we can do better than him."
This is very interesting. The feud between Hastert and Fitzgerald has been well publicized. This indicates, Hastert is probably actively targeting Fitzgerald in the primary. LaHood is a very low key guy who learned at the hand of Bob Michel as his long-time chief-of-staff. A move like this doesn’t happen by LaHood without serious consideration of the impact and consultations with others. It is hard to imagine this occuring without Rove and Hastert signing off.
This is an especially risky maneuver. If it fails, Fitzgerald is hurt in the primary with a bruising battle setting him up to lose in the general if a decent Democratic candidate is selected (largely meaning not Carol Mosely Braun). If it is successful, Andrew McKenna loses the right wing base for the general election, meaning they stay home and don’t vote for Bush or McKenna. I can’t imagine Bush or Rove being able to signal opposition to Fitzgerald and maintaining the conservative base of voters in Illinois. Without a strong conservative base vote, Illinois is unwinnable for Bush. It is a stretch with the conservative base.
In many ways this is more difficult than California. Riordan was a sure winner in the general election. Simon wasn’t an incumbent either and realistically California isn’t voting for Bush, but Riordan as Governor would have made the Democrats spend money in the state in 2004. There was nothing to lose. In this case there is a potential downfall. If McKenna is on the ticket, Illinois may be out of play for the presidential race, but Republicans will have to spend a lot of money on McKenna, a likely loser.
There is a bit of intrigue on the Democratic side as well. I’ve got a full day so I’ll post more tonight.