The Weird Thing about the Cubs line

Judy made fun of the Cubs in Bloomington

“Maybe he ought to run for manager of the Cubs,” she quipped in Bloomington. “They’re a bunch of losers, too, and need some help.”

As a Cubs fan I have long learned to take ridicule, but it was perhaps the dumbest place to say it. There are no White Sox fans in Central Illinois. Actually I know one. One. Perhaps Miller counts as two now that he lives in Springfield.

Now, Central Illinois is about half Cards fans so that audience found it funny, but you might as well insult Presbyterians or something.

Judy, stop saying stupid things. Please.

Bill still lives there (Central Illinois broadly, though he hates Bloomington) and here is what he has to say

And she was booed. At her own rally.

How absolutely symbolic of her clueless campaign. I mean, exactly how many votes did she think she’d pick up by saying that?

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

I fully expect to read tomorrow that she also made a crack about the Bears losing to the Miami Dophins, then topped it all off with a few dead baby jokes.

A good dead baby joke might do better actually.

Darin on Sierra Club Endorsement

Jack Darin has been circulating the following letter to environmental activists. I agree with everything he says in terms of environmental policy, though I have reasons other than the environment for which I’m critical of the Governor

Dear Illinois Environmentalist:

As you know, we will have three choices for Governor
when we go into the voting booth on Tuesday. We all
know, however, that when all is said and done Tuesday
night, either Rod Blagojevich or Judy Barr Topinka
will have been elected Governor of Illinois for the
next four years.

I agree with much of the platform of the Illinois
Green Party, and as a fellow environmentalist, I’m
sure you do too. I also believe that our best hope
for enacting these policies and programs is to vote
for Rod Blagojevich on Tuesday.

As environmentalists, we have to ask ourselves, who
would we rather have leading our state, as we face
continuing assaults on our environmental laws in
Washington, and as we face major decisions of our own
about energy policy, clean air, clean water, and
natural areas protection?

Rod Blagojevich is the first Illinois Governor ever to
stand up to the owners of Illinois’ coal plants, some
of the heaviest hitters in Illinois politics, and
force them to clean up their act. Cleaning up old,
dirty coal plants has been at the top of the agenda
for the Illinois environmental community for decades,
but Blagojevich was the first Governor to act on these
concerns. On November 2nd, the Illinois Pollution
Control Board approved his proposal to cut 90% of coal
plant mercury by 2009 – much deeper and faster cuts
than proposed by President Bush. Blagojevich stood
up to another powerful lobby, hospital owners, and
ordered them to shut down the 11 hospital waste
incinerators in the state spewing dioxin, mercury, and
other toxins into our air. Eight of them are now
closed, and the remaining three are expected to close
soon.

Blagojevich is the first Illinois Governor to
aggressively promote wind power. His energy plan
calls for 10% of our electricity to come from wind by
2015. He has committed to powering the state’s
buildings in Springfield entirely by wind energy.
His energy plan also includes $100 million to promote
“cellulosic” ethanol development, and new programs to
conserve energy.

Our rivers and streams are cleaner today than four
years ago, thanks to Blagojevich’s requirement that
all new wastewater plants include phosphorus controls.
Clean water advocates have sought action on nutrient
pollution for many years from Illinois EPA, but
Blagojevich was the first Governor to act on the clear
evidence that nutrient overload is choking many of our
state’s waters. Blagojevich continues efforts to
reform the Facility Planning Area process to protect
high quality streams from poorly planned development.
He is moving to address Illinois’ longstanding lack
of any program to regulate water withdrawals, to make
sure we have enough clean water for drinking and for
wildlife.

If it were not for Rod Blagojevich’s vetoes of bills
to let dirtbikes and four-wheelers into our state
parks, they undoubtedly would be roaring through some
of our parks today. When the Bush Administration
proposed logging and selling off parts of our Shawnee
National Forest, Blagojevich objected, and those
threats never materialized. Blagojevich supported
efforts to pass the Illinois Wetland Protection Act,
and is committed to working to fill the wetland
protection gap left by recent U.S. Supreme Court
decisions.

Finally, Blagojevich is the first Illinois Governor,
and first Midwest Governor, to commit to serious
action to confront global warming. He has signed a
binding commitment to reduce state government’s
emissions of greenhouse gases by 6% by 2010, and
launched an effort to develop a greenhouse gas
regulatory program for the state. The cap and trade
program recently adopted by California is being
studied closely as a possible model for Illinois.

To be sure, environmentalists have had their
differences with the Blagojevich administration. We
have opposed new pulverized coal plants that the
administration has supported, and we will continue to
do so. Blagojevich is not the first Illinois
Governor to champion the Illinois coal industry, and
he will not be the last. We are encouraged that the
Governor’s energy plan does not include any plans for
further pulverized coal plants, but instead focuses
coal development resources on promoting gasified coal
plants, which are far cleaner than pulverized plants,
and at least have the potential to capture their
carbon emissions. The Green Party platform
promotes the same policies.

There is no question that the state’s budget problems
have had an impact on the Illinois Department of
Natural Resources ability to carry out its mission.
It is important to note, however, that these problems
began with significant losses during the Ryan
administration due to early retirement, and while they
did worsen during the beginning of the Blagojevich
administration, they have also begun to improve,
thanks to increasing appropriations and staffing
levels in recent budgets. We are confident that this
trend will continue, and that the IDNR will continue
to build strength as the state’s fiscal health
improves.

Blagojevich is the only Illinois Governor ever
endorsed by the Sierra Club. I certainly agree with
the majority of the Green Party platform, but it is
also clear that of the three candidates in this race,
none has come close the record of environmental
achievement of Governor Blagojevich.

Historically in Illinois, state government’s goal in
protecting the environment has too often been to do
the minimum to comply with the law. While
bureaucratic cultures do not change overnight, more
and more Illinois is asking “What’s the best we can
do?” instead of “What’s the least we can do?” This
is the beginning of a remarkable change for Illinois,
particularly set against the backdrop of what is
happening to the environmental protection framework of
our federal government.

As Illinois environmentalists, and as citizens of the
planet, we need that trend to continue. We need to
reward innovation and initiative when it comes to the
major energy and environmental policy questions of our
time. We cannot afford to revert to an era where we
did the minimum Washington asked of us, especially
now.

Rod Blagojevich’s environmental accomplishments have
earned him the support of this green voter. I urge
you to consider the record, be proud of the fact that
your state is becoming a national leader on the
environment, and reward this initiative with your vote
on Tuesday.

Jack Darin

IL-14 Poll

Excerpts from Rod McCulloch’s poll of IL-14 are below. First, no head to head since it’s from a poll of only likely Republican primary voters. Hastert’s base is strong though from the results

Republican voters in the 14th Congressional District are still solidly behind
House Speaker Dennis Hastert, according to a new poll released Sunday.

The poll was conducted by McCulloch Research & Polling, and sponsored by a
potential candidate to replace Speaker Hastert, should he retire after this
election.

The poll of 400 likely Republican primary voters, asked if respondents thought
their Congressman should resign as a result of the Mark Foley scandal. An
overwhelming majority, 89.0%, rejected that idea. Only 3.5% of the respondents
thought that Speaker Hastert should resign.

The poll also showed that Speaker Hastert’s approval rating among Republican
voters is 87.4%, with 44.0% saying that the Speaker is strongly favorable.
43.4% of the respondents rated the Speaker as favorable.

The pollster, Rod McCulloch, said the poll showed that Speaker Hastert is as
strong as ever among his Republican base of voters. “Republican voters in the
district know the Congressman too well to believe the national hype about the
Foley scandal,” McCulloch said. “If anything, the Foley scandal has energized
the Speaker’s base, and they utterly reject Democratic allegations regarding
Hastert’s role in the matter.”

McCulloch said that while respondents were not asked about the election on
Tuesday, he said the results bode well for Speaker Hastert’s chances. “Since
this is a Republican district, it stands to reason that the only way that the
Speaker would be endangered is to be abandoned by his Republican base,”
McCulloch said. “It’s apparent that’s not happening anytime soon.”

“If and when the Speaker decides to hang it up, he is so popular among
Republican primary voters in the 14th District, that he will have a major say
in who is going to replace him in Congress,” McCulloch said. “All roads to
replacing him lead through Denny.”

The poll was conducted Oct. 26-Oct. 30.

The District has a Cook Partisan District of +5 and a Bush Kerry split of 55-44 in 2004. It’ s a Republican District, but only outperforms 6 by 2 points in terms of Republican Presidential votes.

Now, in theory 88% approval amongst Republicans could be a problem in a 55% District because that comes out to about 48% of the vote counting independents who voted for Bush. I’d say it’s safe to say that John Laesch isn’t going to light the District on fire so I don’t see any serious threat since Laesch has low name recognition.

Democrats should consider a strong candidate for the special election to replace Hastert if he resigns or for next cycle when he retires, however. One likely candidate is Chris Lauzen and given his thin skin, he’d be a good target if he were to make it through the primary. On the other hand, he will face competion for the seat so that’s a factor in attracting a quality candidate.

Kirk’s Thugishness

He’s such a nice moderate boy. Not.

Then, in August, Schrayer, who was recently named chairman of the Tel Aviv University American Council, became aware that Caryn Garber, a Kirk staffer, had e-mailed Sam Witkin, president of the council, asking him to contact Itamar Rabinovich, the university’s president, to request that he call Schrayer “and tell him that his actions can have a very bad effect on the University.”

Your new Chicago TAU ‘chief’ … is working overtime to defeat Mark Kirk. The community is not pleased with his out front actions,” Garber wrote. The e-mail continued: “We understand that Schrayer hates Bush … that has NOTHING to do with Mark Steven Kirk. Revenge is a dish best served cold. I know that you and Itamar would not want TAU to be sullied by (Schrayer’s) out of control actions. .. believe me, HE is the talk of the Federation leadership and NOT the kind of talk you’d like.”

=========

A story in the Chicago Sun-Times reported the e-mail and included a statement by Kirk, who said that Garber’s letter “does not reflect my view. When I heard about it, I was upset.” He told the Sun-Times that he reprimanded Garber and told her she would be fired if it happened again.

That response was not good enough for Schrayer, who said he wrote Kirk originally in August, as soon as he found out about the e-mail. Kirk replied and asked for a copy of the letter, which Schrayer sent him, he said.

“Since then I have written him five e- mails, which he has ignored, asking him what he was doing” about Garber, Schrayer said. “Now I found out he said if she did it again, he would fire her. I just don’t understand why if somebody committed a crime like that, why they would wait until the next time to fire her.

“I think it’s terrible-a sham. We should be encouraging people to vote for whoever is their best candidate. We shouldn’t be trying to intimidate people as to how they vote,” he said.

When the thugishness goes to the offices of the supposed voices of reason, it’s time for a change.

Had enough?

Back Off Darin

Apparently the geniuses over at the Green Party campaign want to attack Jack Darin and the Sierra Club for endorsing Blagojevich. In their words:

Rich Whitney, the Green Party candidate for Illinois Governor, and Julie Samuels, the Green Party candidate for Lt. Governor, today responded to an open letter, written by Illinois Sierra Club Director Jack Darin, in which Darin praises and urges voters to support the same candidate that recently appointed Darin to serve on two taskforces, both designed to “assist in implementation” of that candidate’s very own energy plan.

The Governor’s office issued a press release on September 8, 2006, indicating that Darin had been appointed by the Governor for membership in the “Coal Gasification & Carbon Sequestration Working Group” and the “Clean Car and Energy Efficiency Working Group” along with representatives of organizations including the Office of Coal Development, ConocoPhillips, Eastman Chemical, Ford Motor Company, Z Frank Chevrolet, and various others.

So essentially because Jack and the Sierra Club are actually showing up to meetings that have the chance to actually improve things, they have a conflict of interest. These aren’t paid positions, these are positions on an adisory council. The implication of conflict of interest clearly suggests differently and it’s a load of crap.

The biggest failure of the Blagojevich administration if one reads the Illinois Environmental Council’s Midterm Report on him is the funding of programs and given it covered his first two years, even I’d give him a break on this. That said, he still hasn’t delivered adequate funding. Looking at his record, however, I’d say I completely understand the endorsement. He has a strong record on regulations and alternative energy comparatively and probably is the strongest Governor environmentally Illinois has had.

Compare that to this quote:

“That’s the old stereotype: tree-hugging, spotted-owl-loving Green Party. It doesn’t apply. We’re not that easy to pigeonhole,” Whitney told me in a lengthy and cordial phone interview.

As I’ve pointed out before, anyone with even a passing familiarity with the Spotted Owl understand that it’s importance isn’t that of one species, but being an indicator species that tells you how well the ecosystem is surviving. So to make fun of that being a big issue is a big slap in the face to environmentalists. It’s something that should be relatively well understood by hunters as well so it’s not a hard point to get across–if you want game left in an area, the indicator species needs to be thriving.

When we read the Whitney web site, light pollution gets greater coverage than feedlots or preserving ecosystems in parks. That’s telling. It’s also telling that they’d attack Jack for participating in a process to actually do something about environmental problems instead of just taking his ball and going home.

About that VFW Endorsement

From the Spring VFW PAC publication (you can also find the October dated endorsement list):

When it comes to endorsements, the VFW-PAC Director, SalvatoreCapirchio, says “words aren’t enough.”

According to Capirchio, the VFW-PAC is exploring a number of changes to the 2006 endorsement
process—designed to take a more hard-line approach on which candidates to select.

“It’s not enough to say you plan to vote favorably for veterans—you must have a proven track record of being a strong ally,” continues Capirchio.

“We must know candidates’ in-depth perspectives on important issues.

Wehope to send ever eligible candidate a detailed questionnaire to probe the key issues. If they don’t respond to our questions, there should be no chance for an endorsement. A VFW-PAC endorsement speaks volumes about a candidate, and for that distinction, we will accept nothing but our strongest advocates.”

Capirchio says they are also discussing other changes, including changing the Endorsement Policy
so VFW-PAC can support challengers (as well as incumbents).

“The goal is to allow VFW- PAC to evolve with the changing dynamics of political landscape,” he
explains. “These issues will be explored further at our board meeting in March.”

Huh, sending out questionnaires to all eligible candidates? Seems like a strange standard given the Roskam campaign tried to sell it as being something they sought out and that’s how it occurs. Oops.

Another strange thing:

From the Sacramento Bee on September 10th:

Endorsements by the VFW PAC, however, are made on the basis of answers to questionnaires. Capirchio said the PAC is trying to broaden its coverage of veterans issues and this year sent a more elaborate series of questions to members.

Because Doolittle did not reach the threshold on the questionnaire, he was dropped from the endorsement list.

While Capirchio said the VFW is trying to expand its endorsements to include worthy challengers, this year its questionnaire didn’t make it out to all challengers. He said he doubted that Brown would have gotten one.

As a consequence, there is no VFW PAC endorsement in the race.

Roskam’s camp claims they didn’t know about the endorsement until November 1st yet the endorsement list is from October and other candidates started their announcments in early/mid-October.

The letter to Hulsoff in the above link is actually dated October 4th. It’s possible that the letters were staggered, but most places do their endorsements at meetings at one time so this is, let’s say odd. In fact, the 2004 endorsements made it into the VFW Magazine for October. On top of that, Bernie Sanders has been touting his endorsement since at least mid-October so something isn’t adding up here from the Roskam camp response that Rich Miller has up.

The Prediction Post

Going race-by-race in the House gets me more switches than going with an overall model, but here are my predictions for US House, US Senate, and Governors. I also add in my Illinois predictions.

For the House, IA-2, IL-10, and CO-5 are the longer shots, but almost all the other are what happens with a 2-1 split on undecideds to the challenger. If I had to do an estimate based on a generic number I’d probably put the pick-up between 30-35 so going race by race I end up with more. The wave seems to be uneven so I’m betting Pennsylvania, Connecticut, New York, Colorado, and Ohio will have the races playing off of each other. We then have some spectacularly badly run races (Hayworth) and some scandals such as in California. Otherwise, just a little nudge in places where incumbents haven’t been tending to the District well and they’ll get blindsided.

The thing about waves is that they don’t take out the most entrenched, they take out those who aren’t paying attention and are in swing or leaning seats. Nearly all of the above except the Nebraska seats fit those categories. There’s something in the water in Nebraska this year.

In the Senate, the only long shots are Pedersen and Lamont. Obviously some of these races are not definitive, but with the national winds, the ties should go to the Dems.

For Governor, I think mine are all the conventional wisdom except Alaska and Nevada. Nevada has the scandal going on and somehow Knowles has some weird mojo that’s made him competitive.

Illinois. I still don’t get why Hynes doesn’t have the biggest margin–then again, the guy just had twins and has hardly campaigned and is headed to a 2-1 margin. Rutherford has laid a big egg during this race. He’s barely, if at all, raised his profile which was the entire point. Stu Who? did even worse.

The other three races, well, those are predictions, not wishes.

The Illinois Senate isn’t one I’d bet my life on, but looking at the races that are competitive and the national wave interacting with local dynamics, the Dems should have some pickups.

The House–everyone’ll think I’m crazy, but despite playing almost all defense, the national wave and Congressional races will pick up three races is my guess. I have pretty low confidence in that one.

* Indicates a pickup.

House District ArchPundit Senate ArchPundit Governor ArchPundit
AZ-01 Renzi AZ Pedersen* AK Knowles*
AZ-05 Mitchell* CA Feinstein AL Riley
AZ-08 Giffords* CT Lamont AR Beebe*
CA-04
Brown*
DE Carper AZ Napolitano
CA-11 McNerney* FL Nelson CA Schwarzenegger
CA-50 Busby*
HI Akaka CO Ritter*
CO-04 Paccione* MA Kennedy CT Rell
CO-05 Fawcett*
MD Cardin FL Crist
CO-07 Perlmutter* ME Snowe GA Perdue
CT-02 Courtney* MI Stabenow IA Culver
CT-04 Farrell* MN Klobuchar ID Brady*
CT-05 Murphy* MO McCaskill* IL Blagojevich
FL-09 Bilirakis MT Tester* KS Sebelius
FL-13 Jennings* NE Nelson MA Patrick*
FL-16 Mahoney* NJ Menendez MD O’Malley*
FL-22 Klein* NM Bingaman ME Baldacci
GA-08 Marshall NV Ensign MI Granholm
GA-12 Barrow NY Clinton MN Hatch*
ID-01 Grant* OH Brown* NE Heineman
IL-06 Duckworth* PA Casey* NH Lynch
IL-08 Bean RI Whitehouse* NM Richardson
IL-10 Seals* TN Corker NV Titus*
IL-11 Weller TX Hutchison NY Spitzer*
IL-17 Hare UT Hatch OH Strickland*
IN-02 Donnelly* VA Webb* OK Henry
IN-08 Ellsworth* VT Sanders OR Kulongoski
IN-09 Hill* WA Cantwell PA Rendell
IA-01 Braley* WI Kohl RI Carcieri
IA-02 Loebsack* WV Byrd SC Sanford
IA-03 Boswell WY Thomas TN Bredesen
KS-02 Boyda*
+7 52-48 TX Gov Goodhair
KY-03 Yarmuth8 VT Douglas
KY-04 Lucas* WI Doyle
MN-01 Walz* WY Freudenthal
MN-06 Wetterling* +10
 32-18
NE-02 Moul*
NE-03 Kleeb*
NV-03 Porter
NH-02 Hodes* IL Races
NM-01 Madrid* Madigan 70-28-2
NY-19 Hall* White 68-30-2
NY-20 Gillibrand* Hynes 67-31-2
NY-24 Arcuri* Giannoulis 50-44-6
NY-25 Maffei* Blagojevich 48-40-10-2 Other Nieuked – Stufflebeam
NY-26 Davis* Stroger 55-45
NY-29 Massa*
IL
SEN
+3 D 34-24-1
NC-11 Shuler* IL
House
+3 D 68-50
OH-01 Cranley*
OH-02 Wulsin*
OH-12 Shamansky*
OH-15 Kilroy*
OH-18 Space*
PA-06 Murphy*
PA-07 Sestak*
PA-08 Murphy*
PA-10 Carney*
TX-22 Lampson*
TX-23 No Runoff
VA-02 Kellam*
WA-08 Burner*
WI-08 Kagen*
WY-AL Trauner* +51 254-181