Thursday, December 08, 2005

Big guns, deep pockets

The new Gidwitz-Rauschenberger alliance increases conservative gubernatorial odds to win in both the primary (even if both Brady and Oberweis stay in) and the general.

Social conservatives now have fewer to choose between in March. They will never vote for pro-gay, pro-abortion Gidwitz, no matter with whom he teams. At any rate, Rausch – according to his walk (votes) vs. his talk - is weakest of the three conservatives on social issues, explaining how he could tell Berkowitz yesterday, "Ron Gidwitz and I agree on 90% of the social issues that conservatives care about...." Rauschenberger is obviously not clear on the social issues we care about.

Yet even if G-R pull off a primary victory for their stand against corruption, they will still lose in the general. It matters not whether Dem-lites Gidwitz or Topinka take on Blagojevich. They will lose. They only distant hope Republicans have to retake the mansion is if a conservative wins the primary, thereby activating the base.

Neither Gidwitz nor Topinka will win because no one but party loyalists will work for them. Without grassroots, the party will never persuade swing voters in the general

Bloggers this week have theorized that somehow social conservatives whipped into submission by a GOP establishment uncommitted to social issues can overcome the highly motivated abortion industry to sway voters from Blagojevich to JBT (or now Gidwitz).

Those dreamers have no idea. Blagojevich is a pro-abortion politician of national importance to the other side. Dreamers have no idea of their big guns and deep pockets and how much they care about this race.

The only way to combat their power, money, lies, and distortion is via the grassroots, and even then the battle will be uphill.

What is clear is the White House's intent on revenge against Oberweis. The WH is willing to give back the governor’s seat to a Democrat dufus rather than chance an Oberweis win.

For details of the abortion industry's vested interest in Blagojevich's retention, see page 2 of my blog on this topic. Interested parties include Personal PAC, Planned Parenthood, and NARAL.

17 comments:

Anonymous,  8:18 AM  

I agree this changes things, for the primary. However a conservative won't win in November, you know that Jill.

Secondly...with his approval ratings in the tank, with the war a disaster, I think it's hilarious you actually think the White House is putting the time and energy into worrying about what Oberweis is doing...please Jill, think these posts through before you hit "publish" on the blog.

Anonymous,  8:54 AM  

you never know anon 8:18, the white house could still be upset that obie refers to pro-lifers (bush) as taliban (if memory serves they are still on bush's list of evil terrorists)

Anonymous,  9:11 AM  

I do think that the conclusion that the White House will never forgive Oberweis is spot-on. This will be true even after GWB leaves the White House. Oberweis should get a clue, because he'll never get movement conservative's support.

OneMan 9:17 AM  

I guess my bigger question is reguardless of how the White House feels about Oberweis is why Social Conservatives would ever real buy into Oberweis in the first place. Didn't he run as more of a moderate in his first senate run?

I don't recall him being a big favorite of the Pro-Life team back then.

Anonymous,  9:28 AM  

Good plan, Jill. Energize that conservative base. If that conservative base is fully energized your candidate will do like the last Republican to energize the conservative base: Alan Keyes. The great thing is that Democrats can then spend money on races like matter, like keeping Roskam out of Congress.

This is a thing of beauty. Working together, Jill Stanek and Skeeter will make sure that Illinois remains the bluest of the blue states.

Thanks for your assistance, Jill. You are the best!

grand old partisan 10:07 AM  

Anon 8:18: I’m not sold on the idea that a conservative cannot win in November. Please provide some explanation.

Anon 8:54: Isn’t the Taliban on everyone’s list of evil terrorists, not just Bush’s?

Skeeter: I think its a little naïve to say that Keyes did as poorly as he did simply because of his policy positions.

Anonymous,  10:25 AM  

Grand Old Partisan: It is also naive to think that Illinois is Georgia [if you recall, JACK! brought in some of Saxby Chambliss's team and we all know how JACK! did].
The far right -- the Staneks and the Bradys -- are not accepted here.
Any time that Illinois Republicans nominate a right wing extremist, they go down in flames.
That's just Illinois politics.

grand old partisan 10:51 AM  

Skeeter: You're right, Illinois is not George. Thanks for clearing that up. Oh wait - I never said or implied it was, the way you implied that Keyes only lost because of his policy positions. Position that were almost identical to Mr. Fitzgerald's, who was the incumbent.....which means that someone with those policy positions COULD and DID win a statewide election.

I'm not sure what Jack has to do with anything in this conversation, but since you brought it up, I don't think Jack Ryan's campaign ended up the way it did because of his campaign staff. He won the nomination pretty handily, and was at least competitive against Obama in the polls up until the PR disaster that broguht him down. I blame the Party leadership that shoved him off stage, not his campaign staff for that.

Anonymous,  11:25 AM  

GOP: Are you really claiming that the Fitzgerald victory was proof that the far right in Illinois can win elections?
Do you believe that it was Fitzgerald's policies that won that election, or could it have been the fact that he:
1) Had an Irish name;
2) Had a ton of money; and/or
3) Ran against somebody without any support in Illinois?

Also, if you think that Fitzgerald had identical policy positions to Keyes, then you GOP is probably a name for Dave Syverson.
Fitzgerald was a liberal compared to Keyes, and Keyes is the only type of candidate acceptable to people like Stanek and Brady.

Anonymous,  11:41 AM  

Why is it that the right-handed conservatives continue to pretend that a conservative hasn't had the chance to run for governor and that if they could only have the chance, they could prove that Illinois is secretly a coservative minded state? Jim Ryan anyone? Oh, I know the name did him in... So I'm to believe that Illinois voters aren't smart enough to decipher one guy named Ryan from another, but they're smart enough to know that they're secretly waiting to head to the polls for Oberweis? It's a joke. Oberweis would be just above Keyes type numbers on election day. Oberweis is a Blago dream. I'm not saying that a right-handed conservative couldn't win the governorship in Illinois ever, just not at this point in time, barring something unforeseen like an indictment of Blago. Primaries aren't zero sum games. Generals are. Winning is everything in November and I don't particularly like the feeling of going to bed election night after getting beat by 8 or 9 points, but knowing that at least we put up the candidate we most agreed with. It's give and take and although I certainly disagree with JBT on several social issues, she is our best chance to beat Blago and at the end of the day, social issues don't pay my bills or secure my pension.

grand old partisan 12:09 PM  

skeeter: Thanks for helping to prove my point. I never claimed that Fitzgerald won SOLELY because of his policy positions, I just pointed out the fact that he won.
You are absolutely right that Fitzgerald's name and money, and Braun's weakness that helped him win that seat. But he was very conservative (despite your bizarre and hyperbolic characterization of him as a liberal compared to Keyes). And he won.

Do you get it? You are right that Fitzgerald did not win the eletion because of his policy positions. And I am right that Keyes did not lose solely because of them.

So yes, I am really claiming that - under the right conditions - a "far-right" conservative can win statewide general elections.......but it's really not a claim. It already happened, and it certainly could happen again, given the right circumstances. Now, you can argue that these aren't the right circumstances. But I don't see how you can argue that it could never happen.

PS, your attempt to paint Brady with the same brush as Jill is a cheap and pathetic trick. She is a one-issue activist. On the one issue, Brady does agree with her. So did Poschard. But neither Brady nor Poschard are or were single minded zealots on the issue. So why not debate the things that really matter in this campaign (since you know as well as I that whoever wins the Governor's race in 2006 will have absolutely no ability to chance the current status of abortion policy in this state)? How about a debate over fiscal policy, pension reform, education reform, transportation funding…..issues about which the next Governor actually will have substantial influence?

Or are you comfortable being a pro-choice version of that which you claim to despise?

Anonymous,  12:38 PM  

I admit that Keyes did not lose solely because of his policy positions. He played the part of the lunatic pretty well, on top of taking lunatic positions. Of course Syverson and Rauchenberger thought he was a good fit for Illinois.

At the same time, the only Stanek-type candidate who has won state-wide is Fitzgerald, and I suggest that nobody outside the inner core of right wing circles viewed him as an extremist. He sure did not play up any extremist positions.

The bottom line continues to be that Illinois is not Georgia. The far right cannot win here, if the campaign is run on the issues. Illinois just does not accept that sort of extremism.

Finally, when Brady started talking about intelligent design most moderates wrote him off. That is an extremist position and if he does get the nod, then that and his abortion positions will mean that he will be lucky to crack 40% against one of the politically weakest incumbents you could find.

The far right is going to lose the election for the ILGOP. When the extremists take control in the primary, the party loses.

I have to say, as someone who survived the Mondale experience, it is nice to see it happen to the other side.

Anonymous,  1:27 PM  

Social Conservatives take note. Issues that matter in Illinois:

Taxes
Jobs
Corruption

Anonymous,  2:23 PM  

I don't know why anyone is surprised at Gidwitz and Rauschenberger teaming up. Whatever Rauschy may say about social morality issues on the campaign trail, he spent 90% of his time in the legislature working on the budget and economic issues. Rauschy and R Giddy can team up because they agree 100% on the Republican agenda they both care about the most: helping the rich get richer at taxpayer expense.
This is more fine evidence that social conservatives who vote Republican in Illinois because they think the GOP will make changes on abortion law or other social morality issues are suckers.

grand old partisan 2:26 PM  

Interesting, will. I never realized that rich people don't pay taxes, and thus aren't considered "taxpayers."

Anonymous,  6:45 PM  

Jil,
Interested parties also include about 70% of the electorate in Illinois. I know that even you can't seriously believe otherwise.

Anonymous,  10:43 PM  

The White House can go scratch for all this conservative cares. They haven't done ANYTHING for Illinois grassroot Republicans for the last 17 years but IGNORE us.

Nearly as much as the corrupt combine and assorted RINOs' they are responsible for the partys demise here.

"The Milkman is coming."

  © Blogger template The Professional Template by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP