Posted on 08/11/2004 5:42:04 AM PDT by Mike Bates
Illinois senate race, Version 2.0
Random observations as we now move onto the real contest:
Much will be made about Alan Keyes not being an Illinois resident. It’s a little late to whine about that. For a couple of hundred years, the U.S. Constitution has simply required a senatorial candidate "be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen." Dr. Keyes didn’t force himself on Illinois. He was asked to run. The carpetbagger talk and Keyes’ criticism of Hillary will fade quickly as the public’s focus moves on. One thing the Alan Keyes selection made painfully apparent was how pitiable the Illinois Republican Party — or at least the tattered remnants that remain of it — is. More than 12 million Illinoisans, and the state GOP had to get someone from Maryland to run. That’s what years of Jim Thompson, Jim Edgar and George Ryan in the governor’s mansion did. Thompson and Edgar blurred the distinction between the parties with a squishy soft moderation that made elections more personality contests than competitions between differing philosophical values. Ryan continued the party’s erosion, accelerating it with his own form of corruption. Since the weakened GOP can’t provide any support, it has to look to rich folks who can fund their own campaigns. The party couldn’t find an acceptable one after Jack Ryan, so it opted for a candidate who’s known by conservatives across the country.
Alan has his own financial problems. He owes money from past campaigns as well as back Maryland taxes. Obviously, the party is hoping Ambassador Keyes will bring in contributions from out of state. I think he’ll do that, but there’s no way that he’ll come close to matching his opponent’s $10 million.
That being the case, Mr. Keyes needs as much free publicity as he can get. No doubt he hoped to have several debates that would give him needed exposure. His opponent is already backing away from his call for there to be six debates. Three may be good, or possibly just two. Funny, isn’t it, how the golden boy of the Democratic Party has gotten camera shy so suddenly?
Whatever debates there are will be a hoot. Mr. Obama gives good TelePrompTer, but in a one-on-one situation, can he do as well? Mr. Keyes’ oratory is among his strongest points. He speaks in complete sentences, and uses logic and thoughtful reasoning. Whether this will fly with Illinois voters is uncertain. Still, both candidates appear quick-witted and watching their dueling philosophies should be a treat. As a Keyes supporter (you knew that, didn’t you?), I only hope the ambassador takes it easy with assertions, such as he made Sunday, that he has confidence "because the victory is for God." Rhetoric like that scares many people.
I don’t believe Mr. Keyes’ candidacy will prop up the state party enough for President Bush to win here. At the same time, having a decent standard bearer for the senate may help save some Republican scalps further down on the ticket. As bumbling as the GOP is, I was waiting for them to slate George Ryan to replace Jack.
With Jack Ryan finally and officially out of the race, I’m sure going to miss those pictures of his ex-wife.
With Mr. Keyes in the race, Barack Obama will not be able to effortlessly slide to victory with no opposition. He’ll have to campaign in Illinois, keeping him out of other states in which his media-awarded "rock star" status may have helped other Democrats win.
Alan Keyes and Barack Obama offer a real choice between the liberal and conservative viewpoints. They have completely different visions of what government should do and what its role in our daily lives should be.
The rest of America will closely watch the Illinois senate race. In this, it resembles another Illinois senatorial match up, the one between Stephen A. Douglas and Abraham Lincoln. You may recall that Democrat Douglas won that election. Odds are heavily in favor of another Democratic win this year. But Alan Keyes isn’t going down without a fight.
Mike Bates' new book, Right Angles and Other Obstinate Truths, is available at Barnesandnoble.com, Booksamillion.com, Amazon.com or iUniverse.com and can be ordered through most bookstores.
Are there any polls out yet ?
For a couple of hundred years, the U.S. Constitution has simply required a senatorial candidate "be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen."
Actually the Constitution provided for the state legislatures to select the senators representing that state. The 17th amendment put an end to that, opening the door to carpetbaggers, professional fund-raisers and individuals of sufficient personal wealth to buy their seat.
CBS 2 Chicago says Obama 67% Keyes 28%.
I've heard of a couple, and Alan's getting creamed. I think he'll pick up steam over the next few weeks. At least I hope so.
The popular election of senators was not a major improvement. For one thing, it reduced the power of the individual states.
One of the biggest mistakes our nation has ever made. The direct election of Senators sounded the final death knell for the concept of federalism.
That could definitely hurt Keyes. Hasn't that been outlawed as "hate speech" in Chicago and other urban centers?
Except for the unelected part you are right. (state legislators are all elected I think) And it has been to the ruination of the Republic and a net loss in state's powers.
Why is a State's power identified by the wishes and interests of its elected officials and not by the wishes and interests of its electorate?
The 17th amendment was ratified in 1913. It is no coincidence that the sharp rise in the size and power of the federal government starts in this year (the 16th amendment, establishing a federal income tax, ratified the same year, was also important). As George Mason University law professor Todd Zywicki has noted, prior to the 17th amendment, senators resisted delegating power to Washington in order to keep it at the state and local level. “As a result, the long term size of the federal government remained fairly stable during the pre-Seventeenth Amendment era,” he wrote.
I think the polls should rightly read Obama (number), Republican Candidate (number) because in the public perception they are probably still voting against Ryan. Once they get used to the idea of Keyes and hear what he says, his numbers will definitely go up.
The electorate had their own interests more closely represented, by district, apportioned by population, through their Congressmen. That is why Congressmen have shorter terms than Senators so that the electorate could more rapidly address their ever changing wishes in Congress. Senators were presumed to be chosen for their abilities by a more stable and better informed body than the electorate, the state's legislature. That is what they were hired to do by the electorate. Manage the interests of the state.
Now Senators are hired by the electorate, two per state, no apportioning, and go off to D.C. for six years where they entrench themselves in a self-protecting bureaucracy where they are unanswerable to state officials by censure or recall and nearly unanswerable to the electorate having found an unlimited trough of re-election funds and a good-old-boy re-election support network.
The Senate was to be a check on the House. The House, working directly for the people, would craft laws and treaties and bills. The Senate (which could also do those things) would represent the individual state's interests. The Senate, being longer tenured and more narrowly chosen, was to be the august tempering body that kept the more mercurial, temporal and widely dispersed interests of the House in check.
The state loses power to the feds because they must now grovel at a Congress's feet for authority and money. (One is usually tied to the other it seems.) So now both Senators and Congressmen are elected by popular vote which is fickle, being relatively easily manipulated in comparison to state officials, and self interested rather than interested in the state's sovereignty and welfare.
The 17th Amendment was a bill of goods sold to the people with the basic slogan of the Dems after election 2000; "the people are being disenfranchised." It was a way for the feds to consolidate more power and the people who pushed for it knew that. They were well aware of the maxim of pure democracies, to paraphrase; "once the people find that they can vote themselves largesse from the government they will do so until it is bankrupt." For wannabe petty tyrants that's a great thing. The more instability there is the more power they can assume. It was a major and necessary step towards socialism and the eventual dictatorship that we will have.
Next step: Woodrow Wilson and the League of Nations.
Next step: FDR and Supreme Court supremacy.
Actually the 17th Amendment was never legally ratified. Spilled milk now.
LOL. Did you intend that to be funny?
Not to mention sardonic. Thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.