Posted on 01/12/2009 1:33:24 PM PST by Wolfstar
WASHINGTON – It looks like Roland Burris will take President-elect Barack Obama's Senate seat later this week. Senate Democratic leaders said they expect to swear in the former Illinois attorney general in the coming days, barring objections from Republicans.
Senators Harry Reid and Dick Durbin made that statement after Burris' lawyer met with Senate officials, who said his formal paperwork was in order.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
If the R’s expect the D’s to obey the Constitution, they should support strict constructionism even when they don’t have a dog in the race.
With a side of humble pie washed down with a glass of very bitter bitters?
But Peter Roskam is over 30 . . . .
What I would be preferable?
(1) For the IL legislature to change the law so that the election to fill the Senate seat takes place this summer, and have Roskam run without having to give up his House seat; Roskam would beat Burris (assuming that the two would win their primary), and then he’d be the incumbent going into the November 2010 regular election for a full 6-year term.
OR
(2) For the IL legislature to do nothing, and have Burris as the incumbent in the higher-turnout for 2010 general against Roskam (who would have to give up his seat), and then have Roskam win the 6-year term?
Given that Roskam would have a better chance against Burris in a November 2010 regular election than against the Democrat that would get the 2010 nomination if Burris was defeated in a Summer 2009 special election (whether it be Shakowsky, Madison or whomever), we may be better off with Burris as the Senator through 2010 so that he has a better chance of winning the Dem nomination and Roskam wins a 6-year term, not an 18-month term.
I’m not so sure we’d have a better chance in 2010 than a special, I’d think Republicans would be much more motivated to turnout in a special?
But I agree with your other points , Burris would stand a very good chance of losing the special primary, we need him as the rat nominee. And an 18-month term isn’t worth much, (although we need all the Senators we can get right now.)
“Republicans would be much more motivated to turnout in a special?”
Than the rats I mean.
I agree that we’d have a better chance of winning in a 2009 special than a 2010 regular. But my concern is that a victory over Burris in a low-turnout 2009 special would be pyrric, given that it would get Burris out of the picture and allow the Democrats to nominate a stronger candidate in 2010 and greatly reduce our chances of holding the seat from 2011-2017. Frankly, I think I’d rather let the Dems keep the Senate seat for the 18 months prior to January 2011 if it improves our chances of winning the 6-year term in November 2010.
Of course, some may argue that winning a special election this coming summer would help the GOP to win the 6-year term in 2010, since we would have an incumbent running for reelection. However, I think that whomever would be our candidate in 2010 would be better off running as a non-incumbent against the incumbent Burris than running as an incumbent against a non-incumbent Shakowsky or Madigan.
At the end of the day, though, the decision on whether to hold a special election will be made solely by the Democrats, so we can have this philosophical discussion without risk that we’ll make a bad decision, since there is no decision for us to make.
Who should the republican nominee be, in 2010? The only Illinois Republican who was elected to the U.S. Senate, within the past 20 years, was Peter Fitzgerald, who was a state senator, when he was elected. I think our nominee should be St. Sen. J. Bradley Burzynski, of the 35th District, which includes De Kalb Co. and part of the Rockford area. These are some of his latest interest group ratings: NRA, A+; Chamber of Commerce, 100%; URF, 90%; AFL-CIO, 10%; and Planned Parenthood, 0%. He was elected to a four-year term, in 2008, so he could run for a statewide office, in 2010, without giving up his state senate seat. He’s been a state senator since 1993. If he becomes a U.S. senator, he would have 18 years of experience, as a state senator. That’s more than twice as long as Obama was a state senator.
I’m sure that Peter Fitzgerald would have defeated Mosely-Braun in 1998 even had he followed up his state senate service with two terms in Congress.
I don’t know anything about Burzynski. Do you think he’d make a better statewide candidate than Roskam?
I think that Congressman Roskam would be a very good U.S. senator, but I think that St. Sen. Burzynski would be a slightly better candidate. Burzynski is more conservative, especially concerning gun rights. Burzynski has more years of experience, in elected office. I hope that Roskam will be a congressman until Sen. Durbin retires, probably in 2014. Then, Roskam should run for the U.S. Senate.
Burzynski has only 4 more years of experience in elected office than Roskam (currently 18 years for Burzynski and 14 for Roskam) and has the disadvantage of being 6 years older (53 instead of 47). Also, I think that Roskam’s experience would be more helpful in convincing the electorate that he has what it takes to represent it in the U.S. Senate given his experience with both state and federal issues, given that he served 6 years as a state rep, 6 years as a state senator and, at the time that the U.S. Senate term in question commences, will have served 4 years as a U.S. Representative, while Burzynski would have served 2 years as a state rep and 18 years as a state senator. And as someone who has already run three very competitive federal races (he narrowly lost a GOP congressional primary in 1998), including his 2006 victory against all odds, we know that Roskam can take the strain of what promises to be a very tough campaign.
That being said, I know nothing about Burzynski, so maybe you’re right and he’d be an even better candidate.
I agree, we don't want Burris eliminated for 2010. We need a to sign a 6 year lease on this seat.
At the end of the day, though, the decision on whether to hold a special election will be made solely by the Democrats,
Yes. I wonder if Quinn will push for it. Though a liberal he will be a better Governor than the last 2.
I’m sure that Peter Fitzgerald would have defeated Mosely-Braun in 1998 even had he followed up his state senate service with two terms in Congress.
I wish he had beat Crane, we'd still have that seat.
Phil do you really think Durbin will retire in 2014? He'll only be 70, that's a puppy for a democrat Senator.
As to Roskam versus Burzynski. It'd think Roskam would start out of the gate with better name recognition as a higher ranked official. Burzynski is experienced and conservative he'd make a fine choice for a statewide office. We do have 7 to compete for in 2010, we need to have a viable candidate for all them even if it doesn't look promising (ie beating Comptroller Dan Hynes) or popular senile old man Jesse White who I hope retires.
Oh and I think Congressman Shimkus would also make a good Senate candidate.
Yes, I think that Durbin will retire in 2014. He replaced Paul Simon, who retired, after two terms. Durbin will decide that three terms will be enough.
I agree that Republicans should have candidates for all seven statewide offices, next year. About two weeks ago, I sent you my suggestions, for gov., lt. gov., and treasurer. Whom do you suggest? If Attorney General Madigan runs for governor, which Republican should run for attorney general? I heard that St. Sen. Dan Cronin, who represents part of DuPage Co., is a conservative lawyer. He was elected to a four-year term, in 2008, so he could run, statewide, in ‘10, without leaving his current seat.
Hopefully Harry Reid will be defeated in 2010 and Durbin would a favorite to be the new rat leader (perhaps he’d be opposed for being from the same state as the hurts to type this President). Would he really walk away from that power? I hope he leaves, it would surprise me.
I haven’t thought about who for LT Guv/Comptroller/Treasurer or Sec of state much. You’re likely more knowledgeable than I about the various state legislators.
Your idea of looking at Senators who’s terms are not up is a good one.
Cronin is a conservative, if is he’s a lawyer he would fit there well. I mentioned I wouldn’t be opposed to Birkett taking another shot, you disagreed with going with someone who’s lost before. Any GOP State’s Attorneys from Large counties might be worth a look.
“About two weeks ago, I sent you my suggestions, for gov., lt. gov., and treasurer. “
I think that was over a month ago actually! Sorry I can’t find the post and don’t recall your picks.
There’s a blog about running Tom Cross for Governor. No thanks to that. It’s vital we have a good candidate for Governor, I think you may have mentioned Tim Johnson and I wasn’t enamored with that.
I’m thinking it should be not be a congressman but a state legislator or some such, no one who has been distracted by federal politics. I think you mentioned a particular state senator.
I wish I voted for Senator Brady in the last primary instead of Oberweis. Oby is a failure as a candidate. It’s a real pity the vote was split enough to allow Topinka to win.
One thing I think would be good is regional balance. One from down south, one from the west, one from DuPage, one from Cook. Ect. It would contrast with all the (D-Chicago)s. But where they’re from is secondary to qualifications and appeal.
“Oh and I think Congressman Shimkus would also make a good Senate candidate.”
What do you all think?
I hope that many Illinois Republicans want to plan ahead, to encourage good candidates, for the 2010 elections. Here are my suggestions. If you agree with me, please email or call the politicians and ask them to run. IL will have close elections for U.S. senator, governor, lt. gov., and treasurer.
The current governor was a three-term congressman, so the republican nominee should be a congressman. In 2000, when then-St. Rep. Tim Johnson ran for Congress (in the 15th Dist.), he promised that he wouldn’t serve more than three terms, in the U.S. House. He later changed his mind and broke his promise. Last year, he was elected to his fifth term. He should run for governor, because of his experience and his voting record. These are some of his latest interest group ratings: NRA, A; Concerned Women of America, 100%; English First, 100%; Christian Coalition, 90%; Eagle Forum, 90%; U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 84%; and NARAL, 0%. His district includes Champaign and Danville and parts of the Bloomington and Decatur areas, so he has high name recognition in some important cities. If he runs for governor, St. Sen. Bill Brady should run for his congressional seat. Congressman Johnson’s campaign email address is info@timjohnsonforcongress.com. His phone number is 217-373-1320.
St. Sen. Larry Bomke, of the 50th Dist., which includes most of the Springfield area, should run for lt.gov. These are some of his latest ratings: NRA, A; Illinois Family Institute, 100%; U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 88%; and Planned Parenthood, 0%. He’s been a state senator since 1995. His campaign email address is senator_bomke@yahoo.com. His phone number is 217-732-4433.
St. Sen. J. Bradley Burzynski, of the 35th Dist., which includes De Kalb Co. and part of the Rockford area, should run for U.S. senator. These are some of his latest ratings: NRA, A+; U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 100%; URF, 90%; AFL-CIO, 10%; and Planned Parenthood, 0%. He’s been a state senator since 1993. If he wins, he would have 16 years of experience, as a state senator, and that’s twice as long as Obama had, when he became a U.S. senator. Burzynski’s email address is citizensforburzynski@verizon.net. His phone number is 815-899-1988.
St. Sen. Matt Murphy, of the 27th Dist., which includes parts of Cook and Lake Counties, should run for treasurer. He’s the ranking republican on the senate appropriation committee, and he’s a member of the commerce & economic development committee. He proved that he’s committed to conservative government budgets, last March, when he led the movement to allow parts of Cook Co. to secede, to avoid the increased Cook Co. sales tax rate. He’s been a state senator since 2007, but he has more political experience than Treasurer Giannoulias had, when he became treasurer. Senator Murphy’s email address is senatormattmurpy@sbcglobal.net. His phone number is 217-782-4471.
State Senators Brady, Bomke, Burzynski, and Murphy were elected to four-year terms, last year, so they could run, for higher offices, in 2010, without giving up their legislative seats. I emailed Johnson, Bomke, Burzynski, and Murphy and suggested that they run, in those races. I got a response from Murphy. He said that he’ll consider many ways that he can help our state, in 2010.
I hope that St. Rep. Cross will run for governor and lose the primary. If that happens, his district will elect a more conservative rep., and the house Republicans will elect a more conservative leader.
In Jan.-Mar. 2006, I walked seven precincts for St. Sen. Brady. I supported him, instead of Oberweis, for two reasons. Brady had experience, in elective office, and I thought that Brady was more likely to at least win the primary. Oberweis lost statewide primaries in 2002 and ‘04, so I thought that he’d also lose in ‘06.
Shimkus or Roskam, ANYONE but the liberal Mark Kirk.
Tim Johnson is a weird RINO who looks like a walking corpse.
I agree that Johnson looks like a corpse. However, he’s more conservative than many Illinois Republicans, including Mark Kirk, Steve Sauerberg, George Ryan, Judy Topinka, and Judy Biggert.
I hope that the U.S. Senate primary will be between Kirk and Shimkus and that Shimkus will win. I live in Kirk’s district, and I want him to leave Congress. If he doesn’t run for re-election, who should run for his seat? The district has few conservative elected officials. If Shimkus doesn’t run for re-election, he could be replaced by St. Sen. Bomke.
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.