ArchPundit

Tin Ear

ArchPundit March 2, 2004 1 Comment

Despite hopes by Hull’s Campaign that the controversy would die, Illinois NOW is demanding Hull stake out a strong position against Domestic Violence.

“We still haven’t gotten the kind of emphatic rejection of domestic violence . . . that we’ve been looking for from him,” Chicago NOW President Jennifer Koehler said. “We waited three days and still don’t have answers, so we decided to step it up a little bit.”

In response, Hull has said he has already made his position clear,

Speaking to reporters in Springfield, Hull said he does take domestic violence seriously and thought he had answered all of NOW’s concerns several months ago as part of a questionnaire the group gave all candidates.

What Hull is missing is that the response they want is for him to highlight any stands he has in relation to Domestic Violence. Regardless of whether he has answered questions previously, the expectation is that he essentially takes a day and addresses how he would support victims and punish perps.

The problem is that this is going to take him off message longer than just doing it. Campaigns hate these problems because they want to stay on issue, but what they miss is that if they don’t address them immediately, they’ll be off message anyway. Evidence? Look at the article and the only real mention of of drug prices is in the first paragraph that is essentially saying he can’t talk about his message because of the domestic violence issue:

U.S. Democratic Senate candidate Blair Hull on Monday traveled the state promoting his fourth trip to Canada to buy low-cost prescription drugs for seniors, but he found himself once again on the defensive, battling questions surrounding his 1998 divorce in which his ex-wife accused him of violent behavior.

Right now, the Hull Campaign is a case study in how not to deal with problems that creep up in the campaign. They shouldn’t be defensive, they should take the offense, highlight his positions on domestic violence for a day, write a letter expressing his support for NOW’s domestic violence initiatives and move on to the issues they want to highlight for the for primary.

Why Would Someone Criticize the DLC and then Link to PPI

ArchPundit March 1, 2004 3 Comments

Over at Polis, I’m out of the loop on the controversy, but apparently another weblogger criticized Obama for being listed as an up and comer by the Democratic Leadership Conference. Strangely, the other blogger (Howtown on the Make) links to the Progressive Policy Institute which is the think tank arm of the DLC. There appears to be some inconsistency there to say the least.

The critical thing to understand about the DLC’s identification of Obama is that it means the DLC saw a lot in Obama, not the other way around. I favor several issues that the DLC does such as free trade and an interventionist foreign policy–though I differ on Iraq in many ways so I’m not sure why it has become some scandal that they think Obama is bright and has a future. I’ll say more about the Trib endorsement later, but they pointed out that Obama does think revenues and expenditures should match up–a radical suggestion in Shrub’s Washington right now–and this sort of fiscal responsibility is quite in line with the DLC.

Oberweis Over the Top

ArchPundit March 1, 2004 No Comments

I haven’t been treated to any of the Oberweis commercials in St. Louis and I’m disappointed after seeing This Big (on the right side of the page).

Polis has the definitive take on it:

Those Oberweis copter commercials may be the funniest thing on tv these days (save Arrested Development). Forget the fact that his numbers are said to be way off, just having him spout off that anti-immigrant rhetoric over the noise of copter blades is high comedy. The only thing that would improve on this would be if he was flying over the Mexican border with a rifle picking off crossing illegals. “Even if I stay up here and shoot all day, I can’t make a dent out of the thousands who are stealing YOUR jobs!”

I am really mad that someone else won the Ice Cream for Life though.

Assignment Desk: An enterprising reporter should double check whether Oberweis has hired any illegals in the past.

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.