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.
Now you can hope that your other Senator and the Senators of all the other states will give a rat's heiny what you think and censure one of their own. Snowball's chance.
Or you wait until he's up for election and fight the national machine that he has endeared himself to, indebted himself to, done favors for and hope your up-and-coming grassroots homeboy can unseat him.
What motivated the average voter? What does the average voter know about the state's finances, resources, industry etc, etc.? The people of a state can keep track of local issues better, in terms of what their elected officials are doing, and have a greater effect on their willingness to comply with their wishes. So you hire people with experience that applies to your state.
You seem to be arguing that self-government is just tooo harrrrd and it's better to let the feds run it. That's what the 17th Amendment lends itself to. Do the people of a state have more say-so over their state by directly electing two U.S. Senators or by electing state officials (whose jobs are beholden to voters in specific districts of that state) who then appoint two Senators who must answer to them or be yanked?
It's the same as the Electoral College debate. Does that disenfranchise the people? It keeps the liberal eastern cities from ruling over the rural western states with redistributionist policies.
It was a Republic. And we lost it.
I'm glad to hear that your Senators represent you so well.
I thought we were talking about electing a Senator who would best represent the interests of the state not your personal feelings about voters or getting your own personal interests represented?
It was just this sort of selfish attitude (sorry, I can't put it any other way) that the people who promoted the 17th Amendment were counting on. Hill and Chuck were elected by a majority vote of NY state. Most people in NY live in NYC. People in NYC have decidedly different interests than most of the rest of NYrs. They also don't know or don't understand very well the issues of upstate NYrs. But they have the majority so they elect the Sen.'s. Mob rule.
If anyone in NY is represented by them it's NYC and surrounding burbs. Wouldn't it be fairer (and better for the whole state) if they were selected by representatives from all around the state? Like state legislators who come from districts all around the state? That way they would serve the interests of ALL the people, at least a little moreso. Wouldn't that give the conservative folks in rural NY a little more say in things? Or do they deserve what they get?
Is that what happened with the Electoral College in 2000?
What are the interests of a State other than the cummulative interests of those who reside within the State?
What you are arguing for is smaller states, so that minorities in parts of existing states can send their own senators to DC. That's fine with me. Go draw the new map.
"Wouldn't it be fairer (and better for the whole state) if they were selected by representatives from all around the state? Like state legislators who come from districts all around the state? That way they would serve the interests of ALL the people, at least a little moreso. Wouldn't that give the conservative folks in rural NY a little more say in things? Or do they deserve what they get?"
Fairer for who? Looks like someone is trying to 'rig the system' to get a desired result. Why should a citizen have less of a vote based on where they live? Why not base it on; income, eye color, height (tall people get 1/2 vote)...?
The idea was the Senators served only at the sufferance of the state legislature, they didn't even have terms, one bad vote could get you yanked. What kind of Senators you would appoint was a campaign issue for people running for the legislature, and it made the Senate representation an extension of the state government. Now with the 6 year terms and most states not even having recall possibilities a Senator can do what they want for 6 years and the people they're representing are SOL. It takes away power from the electorate and weakens the concept of what the Senate is supposed to be.
I'll give you an example: the two U.S. Senators supposedly from Michigan, really are from Detroit and its immediate suburbs. The rest of the State is not represented - Michigan as a whole, is not merely Detroit.
By mandating popular election of Senators, the power of the urban areas made a dramatic jump. By returning to a state legislature election, the outstate interests might just get a hearing.
To think that in a matter of days we went from draft Ditka to draft Keyes ....
True, but, by allowing a candidate to coast to victory on the votes from one area, that causes the rest of the State's interests to be ignored. Why should they pay any attention to outstate? The outstaters' votes couldn't unseat the Senator, even if they were all for the opponent.
I think Disraeli said that desperation is sometimes as powerful an inspirer as genius. And, boy, the state GOP was desperate.
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.