Rumblings in Illinois

[Darryl G. Thomas]

Last Saturday, Democrat Bill Foster defeated Republican Jim Oberweis by 53 to 47 % to win ex-Speaker of the House Dennis Hasert's old seat.

[Scott Dolan]

Yeah, the Democratic tide is still moving right along.

[Darryl G. Thomas]

More from my Philly homeboy, Dick Polman:

"Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Rumblings in the hinterlands of Illinois

If this was March 2006 - as opposed to March 2008, which is dominated by an historic presidential race, and (fleetingly) by the rise and fall of "Client 9" - we would be fairly transfixed by what occurred last Saturday night in a reliably Republican congressional district that extends westward from the outskirts of Chicago.

This is the district where ex-House Speaker Dennis Hastert reigned for more than two decades; where other Republican congressmen reigned before him; and where George W. Bush posted solid victories in 2000 and 2004. This district is home to the town of Dixon, where Ronald Reagan grew up. This district includes rural stretches that political analyst Michael Barone has called "traditionally some of the most heavily Republican territory in the country."

Yet, in a special House election on Saturday night, made necessary because of Hastert's recent resignation, this district chose a Democrat. A Democrat who had never run for office before. A Democrat who wound up winning even Hastert's home county, on the way to a six-point victory, 53 to 47 percent.

Some desperate Republican spinners have tried to insist that Bill Foster's victory over Republican Jim Oberweis was some kind of aberration, triggered perhaps by Oberweis' unlikeability (he had run unsuccessfully for statewide office three times in the past). Nice try. This is a district where, in a normal year, any Republican candidate with functioning brain cells can get elected to Congress. Hastert, in all his races, typically drew 65 percent of the vote or better. Plus, Oberweis spent $2 million of his own money (he's a dairy magnate), and got another $1.2 million from the National Republican Campaign Committee (the GOP's strategy arm) in Washington. Plus, Hastert stumped for him. So did a current House leader, Roy Blunt. And so did a guy who supposedly would have extra sway with the reliably Republican voters, John McCain.

And Oberweis still lost by a healthy margin. This tells us something important. A high-ranking Republican aide reportedly tells Politico that, as far as the GOP is concerned, "symbolically, losing Hastert's seat is like the toppling of the Saddam statue in Baghdad." I doubt that Hastert would welcome such a crude metaphor, but we get the gist. There's no way to shrug this one off.

This event needs to be put in context, one that only ratifies its significance. House Republicans, sensing that 2008 will be a repeat of the 2006 debacle, are bailing out of the chamber this year in heavy numbers (roughly 14 percent of the current GOP roster); choosing "retirement," they fear precisely the kind of result that occurred in Hastert's old bailwick.

These departures will make life even tougher for the National Republican Campaign Committee, which now has to defend a lot more seats - at a time when it's seriously strapped for cash, thanks to the reluctance of donors to ante up in a bad political environment. The NRCC in January reported having about $6.4 million in the bank; its Democratic counterpart had $35.4 million. Traditionally, or at least before President Bush wrecked the party, House Republicans were always far better financed than the House Democrats.

Worse yet, the sleaze factor, which was strong in 2006, is still lingering. One of the incumbents, whom the party will be compelled to defend, is Arizona congressman Rick Renzi, who sees no problem in pursuing his re-election bid despite the fact that he is currently under indictment on 35 federal corruption charges.

And as for the NRCC itself, the party's campaign arm recently discovered that a fair chunk of its money - reportedly, in the six figures - had gone mysteriously missing, and that its financial records may have been falsified repeatedly over the past few years. Apparently, its newly-departed treasurer is the focus of an FBI criminal investigation. (This is another story that would have drawn more public attention in a normal year.) I am tempted to make a joke about the GOP's so-called reputation for fiscal responsibility, but, instead, let us merely nod in bemusement at the news that ex-treasurer Christopher Ward in 2004 had also worked for the Orwellian-named Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

House races typically get short shrift from the public in a presidential election year, but it's clear, from the Saturday result in Illinois, that a Democratic president in 2009 might find himself (or herself) enjoying an augmented congressional majority. One gets the feeling that the grassroots electorate is poised to vote Democratic, and is merely waiting for the party to get its act together. Assuming it can."

I have never heard in my life the phrase, "The Republicans ain't got enough cash."

[Vince Kargatis]

Extra bonus, Foster's a physicist. Yay for technocrats.

[Rob C]

Oberweis seems like a total prick.

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by Darryl G. Thomas

More from my Philly homeboy, Dick Polman

Great name. There was a letter to the Times of London this Sunday from Harry Pitts of Falmouth.

Listen, if this isn't a Democrat year there are no Democrats or years. You have your standard eight year party-in-power fatigue, you have a wearisome war, you have a faltering economy, you have a Republican candidate mustering less than enthusiastic GOP voters, and you have a youthful New Thing peddling demogogic optimism to a nation clawing blindly toward change.

[Ron Thorne]

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

There was a letter to the Times of London this Sunday from Harry Pitts of Falmouth.

Great name.

Harry Pitts is clearly a genius!

[Tom Storer]

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

Great name. There was a letter to the Times of London this Sunday from Harry Pitts of Falmouth.

Listen, if this isn't a Democrat year there are no Democrats or years. You have your standard eight year party-in-power fatigue, you have a wearisome war, you have a faltering economy, you have a Republican candidate mustering less than enthusiastic GOP voters, and you have a youthful New Thing peddling demogogic optimism to a nation clawing blindly toward change.

You left out "detestable prick as incumbent President."

But as for calling Obama a demagogue, or as Webster's defines the term, "a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power," you could just about justify it by saying that all the hammering on NAFTA is "making use of popular prejudices," although there are those who would argue in good faith that it is not. Also, you could claim that it is a "false claim and promise" to imply the possibility of fundamental changes in the way American politics work. But I usually think of demagogues as being a great deal more manipulative of the public's baser instincts, whereas Obama, perhaps no less manipulatively, is playing on people's higher instincts. "Making use of popular prejudices" would be more along the lines of the Clintons or people working for them playing the race card over and over against Obama.