Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Sauerberg unveils insurance proposal
Next Post: Poll: Broad support for medical marijuana
Posted in:
* I read all of your comments on yesterday’s QOTD about why Jim Oberweis lost to Bill Foster. Many of them were quite insightful, others less so.
* For instance, this Oberweis defeat was not a failure on the part of the state GOP. They didn’t recruit Oberweis to run. As always, he recruited himself.
* There were also some weird references to “The Combine’s” efforts on behalf of Oberweis. Huh? I’m half thinking of banning that phrase from comments because it’s so over-used and usually just downright goofy.
* You’ll never convince me that Sen. Chris Lauzen could have defeated Foster. If you can’t beat a goof like Oberweis in a primary, you can’t win a general. Also, I will grant you that Lauzen’s games after the primary hurt Oberweis, but John Laesch also played plenty of games after he lost the Dem primary to Foster. Laesch, by the way, withdrew his petition for a discovery recount yesterday…
In a statement posted to his Web site Monday, Laesch said his decision was based on consultation with his senior campaign staff, and was made in light of Saturday’s election results.
* Other excuses were floated yesterday…
Oberweis spokesman Bill Pascoe said Monday that it is too early to accurately assess how the election slipped away. He said he would need to see numbers telling him who voted, and where.
“One of two things is true,” Pascoe said. “Either we had a problem with our message, or a problem with organization.”
Yes, on both counts, plus you gots a problem with your candidate, Bill.
* More from that article…
(O)ne high-ranking Republican operative went so far as to suggest Oberweis step aside.
“Jim Oberweis needs to either get out of the race or come up with a new strategy and a new direction if he has any hope of running in November,” said the Republican leader, who asked not to be identified.
As I’ve said since election night, we’re gonna hear more about that topic as the days go by. But I doubt Oberweis will drop out.
* And a Daily Herald editorial made a good point that was also mentioned in comments here yesterday. Suburban demographics are changing…
But there’s little doubt, either, that the dramatic change also reflects a growing Democratic presence in the suburbs
* And CQ Politics pointed out how rare it is for a party flip to happen in a special election…
Democrat Bill Foster’s special election victory Saturday… marked the first time in nearly four years in which the challenging party won control of a congressional district from the incumbent party in a special election.
According to a study by CQ Politics, the incumbent party had been victorious in each of the past dozen special U.S. House elections… Over the past two decades, a partisan turnover in a special election has occurred about once every two years.
* Robocalls were also mentioned yesterday, and popped up in one story today…
[Former Kendall GOP Chairman Dallas Ingemunson] also wondered if an aggressive campaign, particularly multiple robo-calls from Oberweis’ campaign in the days before the election, turned voters off.
* And the Wall Street Journal had this observation….
Saturday’s result showed once again that a hard line on illegal immigration doesn’t win elections. The longer Republicans pretend that it does the more elections they will lose.
And that will be our QOTD today….
* Question: is the Wall Street Journal right? Explain.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Mar 11, 08 @ 9:34 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Sauerberg unveils insurance proposal
Next Post: Poll: Broad support for medical marijuana
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
yes, the WSJ is right. some people get worked up about illegal immigration, but at the end of the day, it isn’t that big of a problem for most people. More people are turned off by an anti-immigration message due to its racist subtext than are turned on by it.
Economic issues and the Iraq war are much bigger issues. What the day laborers, dish washers, child care workers, and gardeners are doing isn’t that important in comparison.
The Washington elite like to tell us that Iraq isn’t important anymore, but they are just deluding themselves. Foster won that thing when he hit Obie on his 10 years in Iraq pledge.
Comment by jerry 101 Tuesday, Mar 11, 08 @ 9:51 am
I guess I’ll start this one.
The WSJ is indeed right.
There are plenty of complaints out there about illegal immigrants. Truth of the matter is that our economy depends on them. The whole enchilada is that all the loudmouthing about illegals is nothing more than a cheap ploy to win votes. Nothing more, nothing less. It means just as much to those proclaiming fire and brimstone from the mountaintops as ‘family values’ did to Senators Vitter and Craig. A couple of easy talking points to score votes plain and simple. I believe that even the most vehement anti-immigrant politicians out there know the economy would colapse if we rounded them all up and sent them home.
Deep down most voters understand this too. Perhaps they were less easily swayed by all the talking points mumbo jumbo in this race.
train111
Comment by train111 Tuesday, Mar 11, 08 @ 9:53 am
I tend to agree the issue if overplayed, but by the same token that’s really overthinking it. At the end of the day, elections are about likeability-not issues, not ground game, but do voters generally like or dislike the people they can vote for. Oberwies seemed to raise the Foster unfavs somewhat, but not tot he point where voters had a genuine distaste for him.
Comment by downstateindivoter Tuesday, Mar 11, 08 @ 9:57 am
The WSJ didn’t have to listen to the candidates. So, it seems they missed Oberweis’ special penchant for buffoonery. Oberweis could have had every issue correctly address and still struggle to win. Everytime he spoke he turned voters off with his odd behavior and even stranger humor.
Oberweis is not likeable. The bottom line I usually ask myself is, “Which candidate would I like to have dinner with?” It definately is not Jim Oberweis.
So the WSJ isn’t right, and it isn’t wrong. It just doesn’t get the reason Oberweis lost. The WSJ has a bias against border enforcement, and it shows with their take on this race.
The GOP needs to tell Oberweis to get out of the race. He could cover himself with millions of dollar bills and invite voters to remove them, but I bet they would resist since they would instantly realize that it would mean seeing more of him than necessary.
The only person worse than Oberweis is Lauzen.
Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Mar 11, 08 @ 10:09 am
I somewhat agree with the WSJ. I think A strong canidate could with with that message. Count me in with those who think the majority of people just do not get that worked up about this issue, they have more pressing fears. Immigration resounds with the hardcore republicans, but that base is not the ones you need to get to vote for you. To win an election you need the moderates/independents. That grp tends to look askance at hardline immigration reform.
SHorter answer, its not a problem that resonates with the public as a whole. Don’t waste time on it. To borrow from Clintons 1992 campaign sign, It’s the economy, stupid.
Comment by Ghost Tuesday, Mar 11, 08 @ 10:11 am
“The Combine … I’m half thinking of banning that phrase from comments because it’s so over-used and usually just downright goofy.”
not because it’s a Kass-ism and you despise Kass and consider him a competitor and he’s in the Trib and you’re in the Sun-Times?
What’s goofy about the idea of the Combine? Isn’t one of the main themes in the Rezko filings to date that there IS in fact intimate co-operation between Democrats & Republicans at the highest levels in state gov?
Comment by BannedForLife Tuesday, Mar 11, 08 @ 10:18 am
If illegal immigrants were taking jobs away from natural born citizens, or loading up on welfare benefits while refusing to look for work, the issue would resonate more. But most are seen as hard working people who take the jobs nobody else wants for low pay, aiding the growth potential in our economy. Train is correct that we are somewhat dependent on immigrants from both a Democrat (votes and constituency) and Republican (low cost workers) perspective. And we who enjoy fine cuisine all benefit from the great “mom and pop” Mexican restaurants that have sprung up in the last 20 years.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Tuesday, Mar 11, 08 @ 10:27 am
Completely disagree with the WSJ.
They make the correlation between John McCain and immigration with the other candidates in the race. Their argument is similar to “If A=B and B=C, then obviously A=C”. While this correlary works in math, it really doesn’t hold true in politics.
The other thing that is always ignored in these cases about “hard right wing” issues such as immigration, same sex marriage, abortion, etc., is that “well, we make the moderates uncomfortable, and they just won’t vote for that”. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Two quick points:
1) Part of the electorate is VERY keen on issues. For those, a candidate’s lack of support of an issue of real concern will keep them home or will result in “he won’t support that, so I’ll vote the other way to make a point” (I don’t abide by that, but many do). That was a keen part in this election in the support of Lauzen. Many Lauzen supporters stayed home because of their anger with Oberweis on the ‘dissing” of their guy. (I supported Oberweis).
2) A significant part of the electorate really doesn’t follow the issues all that closely and will vote for the person they “like” best. Oberweis, is unlikeable to many. Look at the support for Obama. Many have referred to it as a rock star mentality and people swooning for him. I know, I know, many support him because of his ideas. But you have to admit that many voters have just liked the personality, not the politician of Obama. Put up a good person, with a great personality that shows a lot of heart and passion and that will get votes. Oberweis doesn’t come across that way. I think if he would talk about being a successful business man and financial analyst, that would work better with the electorate than all of the negativity.
Comment by Trafficmatt Tuesday, Mar 11, 08 @ 10:28 am
Yeah, the WSJ is right.
The people who get the most worked up about the illegal immigration debate are the nation’s Hispanic Americans. As a result, they mobilize, turn out in greater numbers, and vote in greater Dem numbers than they did before this whole debate began.
Comment by Some Guy Tuesday, Mar 11, 08 @ 10:29 am
===consider him a competitor and he’s in the Trib and you’re in the Sun-Times?===
LOL. Um, no. My main gig is the Capitol Fax. The blog comes second. My syndicated column is third. The Sun-Times is a very distant fourth and I regularly criticize that paper.
But thanks for not claiming that I’m actually “in” the mythical Combine because I occasionally mock those who use the phrase to explain everything, including the Oberweis loss.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Mar 11, 08 @ 10:29 am
The Bushies have made border enforcement a joke. It is a good issue to fire up talk-radio voters. You want to see how it is working? Have a look at this story…
http://www.texasobserver.org/article.php?aid=2688
Comment by Poli-Sci Geek Tuesday, Mar 11, 08 @ 10:29 am
the wsj is definitely right. this is one of those instances where a single issue is more likely to mobilize those opposing their (anti-immigrant) point of view than those who agree with it. suburban voters may not like the hispanics who are moving there, but they aren’t willing to sacrifice their standard of living — which is based on the cheap labor that hispanics represent in the economic equation — because of it…
Comment by bored now Tuesday, Mar 11, 08 @ 10:35 am
The WSJ is partly right. You can take a hardline on immigration, but Hardliners have a hard time doing it without taking a nasty, fear-mongering tone.
Scapegoats are handy political tools, to a point. But you can’t blame the sub-prime market collapse on illegal immigrants, can you? And most folks in the suburbs aren’t worried about losing their job to an illegal immigrant. They’re worried their company will outsource their job to India.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Tuesday, Mar 11, 08 @ 10:37 am
“[Former Kendall GOP Chairman Dallas Ingemunson] also wondered if an aggressive campaign, particularly multiple robo-calls from Oberweis’ campaign in the days before the election, turned voters off.”
This was a *huge* issue in my household. This single tactic turned my wife from neutral to rabid anti-Oberweis.
Comment by Ken in Aurora Tuesday, Mar 11, 08 @ 10:39 am
WSJ is absolutely right. Pointing out that McCain was dead meat about 6 months ago and now is the nominee further underlines the point. Most people understand how complicated the immigration issue is, and having a blanket “throw-em-out” policy doesn’t speak to our concerns about the right way to handle the problem.
With that said, the hard line Republicans are off-base on more than just immigration (aspointed out by jerry101). The war, the economy, climate change, health care, FISA, gay marriage….The list goes on and on. America doesn’t agree with the hard right any more than it agrees with the hard left.
Comment by Lefty Lefty Tuesday, Mar 11, 08 @ 10:45 am
I think the immigration issue is the “red meat” topic that the republicans think will drive their base to the polls. I doubt it will work. But no matter what the strategy Oberweis deploys to win in November, it will come down to this: The problem will not be the message, it will be the messenger.
Comment by Joe in the Know Tuesday, Mar 11, 08 @ 10:45 am
You throw out a generalized statement here that John Laesch “played plenty of games” that I am very interested in seeing you expand upon. With a front-row seat at the Laesch campaign, I saw no such games, and in fact was one of the forcefully anti-Foster people that Laesch personally encouraged to STFU and get out of Foster’s way if I wasn’t willng to help - which request I complied with as a courtesy to Laesch and nothing more.
So I have to say, I think its grossly unfair to try to tag Laesch with “playing games” or at least to do so with no evidence at all that he did. If you need something beyond my word for it, try looking at the 95-97% Dem turnout in Foster’s favor. Do you really think Laesch, who virtually tied Foster in the primary, was working against Foster in some way and Foster still took that amount of Dem votes? That is just not credible imho.
Also, in reference to the petition filing and withdrawal timing, Laesch strongly requested/demanded/pleaded with his attorney for a filing delay. Below is an experpt of his attorney’s reply by e-mail to that request, with some finacial details and other priveleged info removed.
From: Richard K. Means
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 2:57 PM
To: ‘John Laesch’; jen@john08.com
Subject: RE: Discovery Recount and Election Contest Timeline
Importance: High
I agree with your general strategy but we have to operate on this timeline. What you are suggesting is politically convenient but legally incompetent and against your legal interests.
If we waited until Monday, March 10 (March 9 is Sunday) to file a petition for discovery recount, we could not legally begin a discovery recount in time to have it inform our election contest lawsuit which would have to be filed blind and very possibly dismissed without going to trial because of your lawyer’s malpractice of not starting the clock on Friday March 7th. As that would be malpractice, of course, I won’t do it and would have to withdraw as your lawyer if you were not willing to make the formal filing on March 7th.
We can make the formal filing quietly on March 7th and shut up about it. The voters are not likely to know about it on March 8 since we wouldn’t tell Oberweiss, Foster wouldn’t say anything and you could tell any inquiring reporters (who found out from the election authorities) that you did it on your lawyer’s advice and won’t talk about it until Sunday.
…..
The FOIA request that I am talking about is not the same as I was suggesting before and I always file one with the Discovery Recount petition. It would probably be malpractice not to. The “no problems here” answer is false. There are always problems and their lawyers would make them make an accurate disclosure. It might not be much but it’s something we might be able to work with.
In short, I can not let you dictate a timeline and strategy which would likely make you lose your election contest and require me to commit malpractice. Thus, it’s either this timeline or you need to find a new lawyer.
Rich
Frankly, I think taking cheap shots at Laesch at this point is not just fundamentally unjust, but an example of the ugliest sore-winner type thinking I have ever seen.
Comment by Downtowner Tuesday, Mar 11, 08 @ 10:58 am
WSJ may be partly right, but I think a bigger issue is who is the candidate that grabs you? Who stands out from the crowd because they look good, speak well, and have good PR. Most of them are all interchangeable with the same talking points supposedly speaking for ‘the American people’. The conservative talking heads like Rush simply beat issues into the ground to the point where if he likes that guy, I do not. The libs are not any different. The Chris Mathews types go into so many nuance/what ifs that it all blurs into a typical BS session over beer in a bar. Single issue rationale is simply a cheap excuse to not think or listen. Do ya like the person and do ya like what they are saying. Do not robo call me. Give me something that makes me say “Yes”. If you cannot do that you simply do not know the audience you are selling to and are just repeating some consultants or campaign managers bullet points they think are right.
Comment by zatoichi Tuesday, Mar 11, 08 @ 11:02 am
The major candidate in Illinois I can think of who used illegal immigration and still won in a competitive contest was Peter Roskam. He ran some very hard-hitting stuff in direct mail and TV advertising against Tammy Duckworth on that issue. However, as the election day drew near, he pivoted and started running ads about himself in Speedos. I don’t know if that was a course-correction on the part of the campaign, that they recognized the illegal attacks weren’t working and they needed to back off, or they decided the illegal immigrant message had done its work with the base, and they needed to move away from it in the closing days. Other thoughts?
Comment by ZC Tuesday, Mar 11, 08 @ 11:29 am
Trafficmatt has some good points. As a single issue, it’s not going to win you any elections in this economy and with an unpopular war going on and on and on. Obie has little room in his head for more than one issue, it seems.
Another point is demographics. The Chicago metro area is brimming with voters who are/were: granted amnesty by Reagan; children of those granted amnesty; or, children or grandchildren of illegals. So, those are a huge block of antagonistic votes you need to offset before you even begin. Then you must account for the liberal Democrats who lean that way because … well, because they just do. And the more astute Democrats who support it because they realize that most of these people will vote Democratic when they’re granted citizenship.
Media antagonism toward anti-illegal immigration is another huge factor. People who publicly speak against illegal immigration are routinely deemed “anti-immigration,” the “illegal” part being conveniently left out. They are painted as nuts, extremists, right-wingers and/or fascists by the media. For people who don’t fully understand the issue, this can tend to tip them the other way, because they don’t want to think of themselves that way, or want others to think so.
Very complicated issue. Those supporting illegal immigrants have simply done a better smear or propaganda job than the other side has been able to accomplish. There job is made easier in that a majority of the better-known people against illegal immigration are also vocal against abortion, gay rights, women’s rights, and other issues that most Americans are pretty much “live and let live” on, so the issue tends to get painted as a “right-wing” issue.
People need to look at UNBIASED, raw data in an intelligent and open manner, then make up their own minds. Problem is, most people are either too lazy or ill-equipped to do this, so it’s easier to just not think about the issue. That, again, is where the media takes over.
Comment by Snidely Whiplash Tuesday, Mar 11, 08 @ 11:32 am
Rich said, “But thanks for not claiming that I’m actually “in” the mythical Combine because I occasionally mock those who use the phrase to explain everything”
How clever of you. By mockingly put forward the idea of your being in the Combine you subtly create the appearance that you couldn’t actually be a member.
[CapFax reader to himself, “He wouldn’t bring up the possibility if he really was…”]
Very clever indeed, Mr. Miller… but not quite clever enough!
– SCAM
P.S. A hard-core, unadulterated anti-immigration stance will never win an election, but a softer, encoded anti-immigrant message will always give conservative candidates a boost.
Comment by so-called "Austin Mayor" Tuesday, Mar 11, 08 @ 12:42 pm
“You throw out a generalized statement here that John Laesch “played plenty of games” that I am very interested in seeing you expand upon.”
It’s all about trying to knock Oberweis.
He tried to equate Laesch to Lauzen to dilute Lauzen’s real impact on Oberweis.
Funny how it’s always about Oberweis.
They’re afraid of him even though their man got elected.
Comment by True Observer Tuesday, Mar 11, 08 @ 12:50 pm
LOL. Yep, I’m deathly afraid of Jim Oberweis. Busted cold.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Mar 11, 08 @ 12:52 pm
The WSJ surely has a point, but it’s merely one issue in a campaign with a handful of significant issues. The chief issue in the campaign was the character of Oberweis, who was deemed untruthful by the Republican bastion, the Chicago Tribune. Let’s face it, he’s a bad candidate. If they had just about anybody but Oberweis, the result almost certainly would have been different.
Comment by chiatty Tuesday, Mar 11, 08 @ 12:59 pm
Then again, your calling the male students at Cole Hall effeminate prompts me to consider the source.
Take a breath.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Mar 11, 08 @ 1:02 pm
afraid of Jim Oberweis. Busted cold.
Brain Freeze from too much ice cream?
WSJ right
Snidley Whip has an excellent post, which I wont repeat.
I will point out that Spencer Abraham lost on immigration, it killed Sam Brownback’s run, and the McCain only came back after he changed his stance. At least what he was saying publicly.
And that newly elected Ds like Sheriff Brad of Evansville IN have an EXCELLENT immigration record. Even Sen. Stabelow has a even record, and is very good on H1-B type issues, which is what is perceived to have been Abraham’s downfall.
A magic bullet to guarantee election? No.
Does it hurt? No.
Comment by Pat Collins Tuesday, Mar 11, 08 @ 1:07 pm
WSJ is probably right on the immigration question insofar as people are bone-tired of fearing fear itself.
But one thing that keeps getting skimmed over as people discuss “likeability” is sex appeal.
I could probably come up with a “do-ability” scale for all the candidates who ran for the office, but to keep it short I’ll stick to the two nominees. Obie turns me off majorly as a bully. Foster is very attractive to me in a Clark Kent kind of way.
Comment by yinn Tuesday, Mar 11, 08 @ 1:17 pm
The words posted were:
“One of the sorry by-products of our pc culture is that it has made the men effiminate.”
It is a documented fact that at NIU and Virginia Tech none of the students attempted to do anything about the shooters. There is reference to some professor who tried to close a door and he is being treated as some kind of hero.
Even heroism has been cheapened.
People who do ordinary things are written up as having performed heroic deeds.
The point of the post was to demonstrate that the lib/dems have conditioned the public to wait for government to come to their aid rather than to help themselves.
Comment by True Observer Tuesday, Mar 11, 08 @ 1:22 pm
(gasp) Censored! I didn’t realize it was that naughty of a swipe. Sorry.
Comment by yinn Tuesday, Mar 11, 08 @ 1:23 pm
After that quote, you wrote this, TO…
===Also, at NIU the shooter is alleged to have walked off the stage, down one aisle, turned around and walked down the other all the way to the beginning.
Not one student bothered to pick up a chair to crack his skull.
Thank you liberal america.===
Class. Real class.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Mar 11, 08 @ 1:24 pm
I disagree with the WSJ. The illegal immigration issue is important to the voters. It “now” comes in 3rd place after: #1) the Economy and, #2) the Iraq war. This change in priorities is what Oberweis campaign failed to realize (among other things). Nawww, it wouldn’t have made any difference. Oberweis needs to take a 4 year hiatus from politics so his “loser” stigma wears off or is eventually forgotten.
There were many Lauzen supporters that simply chose “not” to go vote on election day for Oberweis. They have told me so. And, it wasn’t simply out of loyalty to Lauzen or due to “sour grapes”. It was because these Republicans were turned off by the dirty campaign tactics used by Oberweis and his staff. Who cares if Foster had a nasty divorce (assuming everything thrown out to the voters about Foster prior to election day was true)? Half of the voters have (unfortunately) gone through divorces themselves. And, is there ever such a thing as a “good” divorce or is the norm that most of them are at least “quasi-nasty”? Yep, that is right.
Oberweis lost the race on his own merits and not because of the illegal immigration issue. But, here is another interesting question: What if the majority of the illegal immigrants were forced to leave the country? If you think that there is a glut of houses on the market right now that is weighing down our economy, guess where the housing market and economy would be going if they all left the country and had to put their homes up for sale? Ouch! This hard & cold fact is something that seems to be overlooked.
Comment by Aaron Slick Tuesday, Mar 11, 08 @ 1:27 pm
What if the majority of the illegal immigrants were forced to leave the country
Look at AZ and OK. Both have tough laws on the books. Lets’ see how it works there
Comment by Pat Collins Tuesday, Mar 11, 08 @ 1:30 pm
The people that are most intelligent, qualified and capable of being true leaders do not run for office thus we are left with the mundane, poorly qualified and grifters. However, I am old and disappointed by the quest for stuff instead of sustenance.
Comment by alsatian Tuesday, Mar 11, 08 @ 1:31 pm
” Aaron Slick,” if you look at the list over at the Polling Report of the latest national surveys on the issue, it doesn’t come even close to being 3rd. Not sure where you’re getting that, but would like a link. And not just for GOP voters. All voters, please.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Mar 11, 08 @ 1:32 pm
Regarding Cole Hall, aren’t the desks bolted down? Unless one is He-Man, it would be very difficult to remove one from its bolts. Also, it is easy to be an internet tough guy when there is not a gun pointed at you. There were heroes in Cole Hall. The guy from ??? who died protecting his girlfriend. He was not froM Chicagoland, but he was a hero.
Oberwies lost not because of the message or operation, but because the candidate and managers of said campaign.
Comment by Wumpus Tuesday, Mar 11, 08 @ 1:56 pm
Regarding Cole Hall, aren’t the desks bolted down?
I believe so. It’s a lecture hall with stadium seating.
Comment by Some Guy Tuesday, Mar 11, 08 @ 2:17 pm
The seats at Cole Hall are bolted to the floor. It’s a theater hall; rows of seats receding back from a raised stage, about four feet high, I think. Stairs to the stage are on both ends. Exits at the rear of the hall.
Everything I’ve read said that the shooter fired from the raised stage. Given the shooter’s position and the difficulty it would entail to reach him, I’ve marveled many times that the tragedy was not worse.
I’m sure, True Observer, that if you were there, it would have been a different story. I take it you’re a big Oberweis fan. Not surprised.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Mar 11, 08 @ 2:18 pm
I opened this up on TO, and I shouldn’t have, so now I’m gonna shut it down. Point made. Let’s try to get back to the QOTD. Thanks.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Mar 11, 08 @ 2:22 pm
===#The point of the post was to demonstrate that the lib/dems have conditioned the public to wait for government to come to their aid rather than to help themselves.
And man-o-man is Jim Oberweis a stud! He just exudes manliness.
Comment by ArchPundit Tuesday, Mar 11, 08 @ 2:22 pm
Hardcore immigration anger has a core support in Republican primaries, but mostly isn’t a big issue for most people. Some of the policies have high support, but low salience so the effect of the issues in general elections is pretty low.
Comment by ArchPundit Tuesday, Mar 11, 08 @ 2:24 pm
yinn-
If I were on a desert island with Milk Dud and Foster, I would hope to remain celibate until rescued.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Tuesday, Mar 11, 08 @ 2:33 pm
Business interests (represented by the Journal ) are generally in favor of illegal immigration, so it’s no surprise to hear the Journal pinpoint the loss on that. But polls have consistently shown that Americans are concerned about illegal immigration, though most would not support Oberweis’s relatively extreme stance (no birthright citizenship). His immigration position, however, is just one position, and people are not going to go to the ballot just to vote in favor of illegal immigration. That is, if voters oppose his stand on illegal immigration, they are unlikely to actively oppose it. Rather, they will view it as one part of his platform.
I don’t think Oberweis has to change much–it would be nice if he did change some things, but he doesn’t have to. What he does have to change is how he is running this campaign. It needs to get more professional real fast.
Comment by The Elginite Tuesday, Mar 11, 08 @ 2:48 pm
Elginist - Intersting take, and well put, but I don’t buy it. You might have a point that no Anglos are going to the polls just to vote against a politician because of their illegal immigrant stance, but there’s plenty of evidence a considerable proportion of America’s Latino population will. We’ve had the massive rallies, polls showing that they are rapidly peeling away from the GOP since the whole debate heated up back in ‘06, and Univision has spent the last year actively encouraging voter registration efforts.
According to the 2000 census, there are about 100,000 Latino US citizens in Kane County. That has to matter at some point.
And while immigration might be one part of his platform, it is most famous portion. For many, he’ll always be the guy in the chopper. That image left a mark. Regardless of what he does, he’ll always be seen as a hardliner on that issue. If he moves too far from it, no one will buy it.
Comment by Some Guy Tuesday, Mar 11, 08 @ 3:25 pm
==America doesn’t agree with the hard right any more than it agrees with the hard left.==
A-freakin’-men!
And the sooner the Conservatives of the 14th district get this in their heads, the better the GOP’s chances of winning back the 14th.
One point that isn’t often made (at least I don’t see it made too often) is that Hastert had a reputation for being moderate but kept moving farther and farther to the right. Still he got a pass from the moderates because he was nice, old Denny. And the GOP somehow was unable to figure that out because it hasn’t been paying attention.
Denny’s legacy got dunked in a cup of cold coffee on Saturday, and the Illinois GOP still doesn’t know why.
Dems: It’s in your corner, now. Don’t screw it up.
Comment by Lionel Hutz Tuesday, Mar 11, 08 @ 3:59 pm
We stole California and the Southwest from Mexico fair and Square. I view the current immigration problem as ironic blowback from our 19th century manifest destiny policy. This country was built upon the blood, sweat, and tears of immigrants. Consequntly, I think the angst about illegal Latino immigration is nativism, no-nothingism, and bigotry plain and simple. The Minutemen or whatever they call themselves are a 21st Century version of the Ku Klux clan.
The wall they are building is absurd,and it won’t work. It’s a gigantic boodoggle.
More to the point, Republican hardliners run a serious risk of losing the Latino vote for the Republican Party for generations to come,in a fashion simlar to the way they ceded the African-American population to the Democratic Party.
I’m not contending that we don’t have an uncontrolled immigration problem that needs to be addressed. But I reject hardliner policies as inhumane, unreasonable, unconsionable, and bigoted - totally inconsistent with the Lazarus insrription on the Statue of Liberty.
Comment by Captain America Tuesday, Mar 11, 08 @ 4:29 pm
Captain America-
The movement of illegal immigrants to this country is akin to the so called “drug war”. We tried getting tough with penalties, fencing the border, sending covert and not-so-covert personnel to foreign countries, infiltrating the network. We also tried decriminalization, going soft on some drugs, being reasonable with foriegn leaders and enticing them with money to help us, and increasing treatment for offenders. End result - people are gonna do what they do, you may be able to put a lid on it and reduce the most flagrant activity, but that’s about it. As long as the supply and demand is there, it will happen.
Illegal immigration is truly an issue with no real solution, except for raising the standard of living and desirability of remaining or migrating elsewhere in the hemisphere, to the south. All the frenetic activity to solve the issue by “beating on it” has resulted in little more than mistrust, bad feelings, and a rightful sense that nothing has changed after all that ado.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Tuesday, Mar 11, 08 @ 4:49 pm
We stole California and the Southwest from Mexico fair and Square.
And they stole it from Spain.
You do know that the border was drawn after that war to have the LEAST number of Mexicans north of it, don’t you?
Illegal immigration is truly an issue with no real solution
Then how do you explain this? http://www.sltrib.com/ci_8301204
Lots of people leaving OK recently, it seems. Do that nationwide….
Poem on the Statue
Added long after it was built.
Comment by Pat collins Tuesday, Mar 11, 08 @ 4:57 pm
OK’s law has only been in force for a few months. Sometimes it takes time for people to figure out how to beat the system, but they will. Sounds like an Old West solution - run your problem out of town so it lands in the next town. And getting a national law like OK’s would be like herding cats. Good luck.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Tuesday, Mar 11, 08 @ 5:06 pm
Rich, thanks for this QOTD requiem to Oberweis giving everyone the opportunity to get it out of their systems. NOW I respectfully suggest a moratorium on obie. He has had too many opportunities already, so let us simply throw him on the scrapheap of failed wannabes and move on to more pleasant subjects with real potential.
Comment by A Citizen Tuesday, Mar 11, 08 @ 5:31 pm
ChopperJim must be showcased across the state. He is the future of the IL GOP. Chairman Andy must be so happy that the plan is going so well.
Perhaps TC & The Sock Puppets can bring the Chopper to SPI to display this diamond in the rough. Perhaps he could come for a week!
Comment by Reddbyrd Tuesday, Mar 11, 08 @ 5:50 pm
Oklahoma solves the problem quite easily (and relatively humanely) and they’re called “mean spirited” and “bigoted.” Case in point.
Most of the illegal supporters are basically saying, “Erase the artifical border and let anyone and everyone come and go as they please.” The problem with that, folks, is that we would quickly have at least 50 million Mexicans and millions more Central Americans pour across our border within a few years. What would follow? We’d ALL be in poverty. I have no problem with dropping foreign aid from stratically antiquated recipients (let’s start with Egypt & Israel, who really don’t give us any real value for our bucks) and reallocating it to Mexico to help solve their economic problems. Then, seal, and I mean SEAL, our borders. Mexico’s number one export is poverty. The more low wage workers we get, the lower our wage scales go. Anybody see PRICES going DOWN? Didn’t think so. Do the math, people.
And yes, that goes for Ireland, Poland, China, India and other sources of illegal immigrants, too!
Comment by Snidely Whiplash Tuesday, Mar 11, 08 @ 9:12 pm
If Oberweis can be convinced to leave the race for the good of the GOP Steve Rauschenberger could be considered a viable candidate in that district. He would have the support of moderates and conservatives and has the “likeability” factor the voters desperately seek.
Comment by Rauschenberger for Congress? Tuesday, Mar 11, 08 @ 9:13 pm
uhm … “strategically,” that is.
Comment by Snidely Whiplash Tuesday, Mar 11, 08 @ 9:14 pm
R-berger is a good man, but a horrible fundraiser & campaigner. The NRCC won’t put much money into this race in the fall (too many other races, and they’re low on cash this year), so that’ll put him at a huge disadvantage.
Would he even take it? He opted out of the post-Jack Ryan senate race when the party wouldn’t give him what he thought was sufficient support to win the race.
Comment by Some Guy Tuesday, Mar 11, 08 @ 9:24 pm
The NRCC called me a number of times in the past two years asking for money - I suggested to them that as long as they were so stingy with Illinois candidates my money was going to stay in Illinois. I asked the guy where he was calling from and it was California. I offered to trade guvs with him and the jerk just laughed - even out there they no our guv is a joke.
Comment by A Citizen Tuesday, Mar 11, 08 @ 10:48 pm
Rich- You are right and I was wrong. I apologize for my inaccurate assessment of where the voters put the illegal immigration issue on their “priority list”. I started looking at various polls that were done and you are correct (again), it doesn’t even make it to number 3. I guess I have been watching “Lou Dobbs” and his television show too long. I stand corrected. Thanks for pointing out this fact to me!
Comment by Aaron Slick Wednesday, Mar 12, 08 @ 5:31 am
Raushenberger is a strong local fundraiser. He has the respect of most if not all of the factions currently not working together in the district. He has the background to unite all the legislators and leaders in the district. For maybe the first time most of the precinct organization leaders might pull together. His candidacy would make the lower county ticket stronger.
Comment by Rauschenberger for Congress Wednesday, Mar 12, 08 @ 9:20 am
The WSJ is right. Republicans opposing immigration is extremely foolish in the long-term. Jeb Bush understands this very well as he looks to the future.
With a recession looming, we really need immigration reform that links temporary entry to the availability of unfilled/undesired jobs.
The internet could easily facilitate matching potential workers to unfilled jobs, without anyone needing to cross the border.
Guest workers should move to the front of the permanent immigration line based significantly on length of work (double credit for service in our military) in the US (along with paying all taxes, wealth, skills, understanding the Constitution, no felony, and some minimal level of English.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Mar 12, 08 @ 2:59 pm