LBJ's feast of the cannibals
’You know the difference between cannibals and liberals? Cannibals eat only their enemies.'’
--Lyndon Johnson
Open left's Chris Bower's: Il-03 A good place to start the primary challenges, and he links some familiar Illinois bloggers.
Bower writes,
This is a blue district in absolutely no danger of falling into Republican hands. It should be represented by a strong progressive.and gives some of Lipinski's vulnerabilities as his stands on Iraq, FISA, choice, and GLBT issues.
Those issues look to me more like the LBJ's pot starting-to-simmer instead of weaknesses.
Illinois has been here before. I remember progressives boiling a far more venerable Democrat than Lipinski.
From Peggy Boyer Long's Paul Douglas practiced 'a liberalism that made sense to the voters
But Douglas’ conscience led to his defeat in an altogether unexpected way during his fourth run for the Senate. As a defender of America’s interests abroad, he ran afoul of anti-war protesters during the Vietnam era. The aging Douglas was outflanked on his left by a young corporate Republican named Charles Percy.McCain or Giuliani not young corporate Republicans, but don't underestimate their coat tails on the top of the ticket in Illinois.
Then All IL-03 would need is a GOP candidate making sense to Democrats like Douglas made sense to so many Republicans. After Progressives pitch Lipinski into the kettle, the IL-03 may not look so blue .
7 comments:
I just wrote a diary over at Prairie State Blue in response to this post. I included the full text below:
-----
There is a post on Illinoize by Bill Barr making the following claim about the IL-3 if liberals attack Lapinski in the primary.
Then all IL-03 would need is a GOP candidate making sense to Democrats like Douglas made sense to so many Republicans. After Progressives pitch Lipinski into the kettle, the IL-03 may not look so blue .
Bill, are you saying that if the choice comes down to republican versus an anti-war democrat in IL-03, there is a decent chance the seat goes Red because of Guiliani or Romney?
If you look at a more recent case, the Ned Lamont versus Joe Lieberman primary, in order to keep the senate seat pro-war the Republicans had to basically NOT RUN A CANDIDATE.
wikipedia page which given my political savvy-ness is the only place I was able to get data from (I don't feel that badly because Bill's only argument is an analogy to an event over 30 years ago and comparing liberals to cannibals). It does make the point that the district is reasonably socially conservative (not really part of the Romney/Guiliani plan). But I see nothing on this page to substantiate Bill's blog post.
From Bowers posts Kerry 59%, partisan voting index +10.3 (I don't really know what that means).
Here is Mark Pera's issues page. So there are differences on abortion and stem cell research, but no mention on this page of a stance on same sex marriage. I doubt that a republican opposing abortion could snag the democrat voters required to win this district while still being pro-war. And stem cell research, well judging by the MO Senate race last year, I don't think this is an issue either.
What bothers me is not the argument that a republican could come in and appeal to democrats in this district? Although given the above data, I don't really see how this could happen. But it is the use of this quote from LBJ:
'You know the difference between cannibals and liberals? Cannibals eat only their enemies.'
Ask McCain if he thinks that LBJ quote has any truth for conservatives after 2000. Oh but I see a difference, we are attacking Lapinski on the issues, not for adopting a baby from South Asia.
Who is running for the Republicans? What kinds of issues would such a republican take up against Mark Pera? What ideas are being put forth from the Republican party these days? 1) make us less safe (I'm going with the NIE here) 2) deport all illegal immigrants 3) Privatization of Social Security (oh this was tried with a Republican Majority in both chambers?) 4) Increase government spending while decreasing taxes 5) Support the unpopular Iraq war 6) Anti-Gay Marriage amendments (this is apparently a pressing problem facing our country, its neck and neck with the problem of rampant flag burning)...What did I forget?
What did I forget?
An out of control Chicago Police Dept. It should be a GOP issue.
More later....
Are you awake, Mr. Baar? Do you recall who were the Republican candidates for that Congressional seat in 2006?
In case you forgot, Spanky the Clown (AKA Ray Wardingly) defeated a would-be neo-Nazi. No one in their right mind considered either candidate to be a threat to any of the candidates who ran in the Democratic Primary (Cong. Lipinski or his primary opponents).
Given the sorry state of the Republican Party at the local, state and national levels, there is no chance for this situation to improve for Republicans in the 3rd Congressional District next year. Only someone totally delusional would think otherwise.
I suspect the Republicans will run someone who wants a better obituary notice in the Chicago Tribune when they die, because that is about all that candidate will get out of that campaign.
just barely awake...
Replace L with someone giving today's rigid progressive line on Iraq, FISA, choice, and GLBT issues, and we might see a more serious GOP opponent.
Conn Dems thought Lemont a certainty for solidly Blue Conn, and Lieberman showed them otherwise.
Imagine a bitter primary that succeeds in knocking out L, followed by a National race with a McCain-Lieberman or Giuliani-Lieberman ticket on top, and GOP candidate in Il-03 who realizes the GOP today is more the party of Walmart shoppers then the country club party of old.
Bill, you can't claim issues for the GOP that they are not claiming themselves. And why would a congressional candidate be involved in the city police?
At no point did Conn Dems think Lemont a certainty...ok I have no idea what Conn Dems thought, but I'll speak to what my opinion of the net roots was on the matter. At no point did the net roots think Lamont was a shoe in, they were shocked when the won the primary, they were bitter, when Lieberman made his own politcal party, and they were sad when they lost. The reason for their bitterness was that they knew it would be extremely difficult to beat Lieberman in the general. Don't mistake that bitterness for weakness, What do you think the outcome for a Lamont vs. Schlesinger race would have been? And this is the analogous situation in Illinois.
Or what about the last governor cycle, the left attacked Blago and won 30 percent of the primary (I'm going from memory here I could be way off). It didn't seem to hurt him too bad in the general.
Bill I think your post is way off base. I feel the analogical arguments, which are always shakey, seem to support this point of view. Furthermore, I don't really see a lot of other lines of reasoning in your post that make sense.
I don't buy the stem cells, I definitely don't buy the war, perhaps the Abortion, and I don't see Gay rights issues as a major issue here.
...you can't claim issues for the GOP that they are not claiming themselves...
It's me telling the Illinois GOP issues they should claim.
I don't pretend they listen to me.
But if the GOP's key premis is getting Gov off your back, then I don't understand why a Gov given to shooting citzens in the back, is so off-limits for them.
At least suggest we shouldn't trust the City to Police itself here (even with an independent commission) and police abuse is worthy of a Fed Investigation as Cong. Metcalf did years ago.
Obama and Durbin didn't hesitate to lecture Illinois Dems about the budget.
I'm sure there are Fed Funds going one way or the other to the CPD.
The GOP should jump on the Jon Burge issue especially with the State's Attorney race up.
It was Democrat brutal racist cops and officials who set people up tortured them and covered it up.
The Republicans could have a field day with this.
If Richard "Dick" Devine would of ran again he and Daley and Teresa Sanchez would of been ripped apart and Black voters would of voted Republican in bigger numbers since Bernard Carey or maybe Abe Lincoln.
Post a Comment