Posted on 04/28/2003 3:57:25 PM PDT by Ford Fairlane
OPINION -- It's November 2004. The returns are coming in. President Bush is winning and this time there will be no recount - John Kerry did not prove to be the foe his democratic party thought he would.
The returns from South Dakota also look promising John Thune has a slight lead with 97% of the precincts reporting. But in the midst of the President's gains and some setbacks this night - control for the Senate looks like it will be determined by the race in Illinois for the former seat of Senator Peter Fitzgerald.
Melodramatic? Maybe...or not.
Since Senator Fitzgerald has announced he will not run again - suddenly the dynamic of the entire Senate has been put into question. Democrats had already targeted Fitzgerald as the seat "they'd most like to gain." Given only a handful of votes that the Senator cast that the President needed, his re-election might have been a tougher task than he or the President would like to have seen.
Now the administration faces the dilemma. Who do they get behind in Illinois? It's plain to see that they want to retain the seat, so the thinking must be "whoever has the best chance at victory in November." And early on it appears as the old "network" solution was about to be rolled into play, and still yet may be.
Illinois Former Governor Jim Edgar had popular numbers when he was governor and continues to enjoy positive numbers now.
But Edgar was from another time. He was governor while George Ryan's shenanigans were going on in the Secretary of State's office. When Edgar was governor, nobody had heard of "license for bribes" or "the Willis children." The point is corruption was not THE issue of the day in the state of Illinois as it is now.
Eventually it was Edgar's health, not his job performance, that caused him to step away from politics. But that connection to the old guard in Illinois remains and in this state's awareness in the post- George Ryan era - "Edgar for Senate" might not be the knockout punch that the White House needs.
Campaigning for this seat will be exhaustive, if the candidate is serious. The winning candidate will be working 5 am to 12 midnight everyday for almost a year to get the message out.
Campaigning for this seat will be expensive. Political analysts that I've spoken with on both sides of the aisle usually put the beginning price tag at around $20 million to win it. Fitzgerald tapped into his own resources last time to over $11 million.
But besides the time and money, the Democrats have trigger they can pull -- if they so choose -- that would pose a formidable threat in the post-George Ryan, scandal-plagued era. His name is Glenn Poshard.
Poshard ran against then-Secretary of State George Ryan in 1998 and nearly beat him. Poshard is from downstate Illinois, thus making him more friendly to folks who care about the issue of guns. Poshard is unabashedly conservative on many of the social issues that grassroots Republican voters care about passionately. And since Edgar is pro-choice, pro-special rights for gays, etc., etc., what an Edgar vs. Poshard race for Senate would set-up could be disastrous for the GOP.
There would be an "establishment vs. conservative democrat" memory lingering in people's minds when nearly every voter who voted against Poshard last time wishes they hadn't.
As I have talked about this potential match-up with GOP and Democratic politicos in Illinois a Poshard vs. Edgar race would be a nightmare for the Bush administration and very well could swing the control of the Senate back to Democratic hands.
So what must the GOP do to win and retain the seat now held by Senator Fitzgerald?
Find a candidate who has no connection to the GOP scandal-plagued history. In other words, find a candidate who is about the historic principles of the party, not its recent pragmatism. They must also find someone who is as conservative as Poshard or more so.
Look, if the Democratic candidate is liberal, then a moderate GOP candidate (Edgar) might win. But if the Democratic candidate is conservative and the best that the GOP can put forward is a moderate, the base responds one of two ways. They say to themselves - "why get out and vote for the candidate I don't believe in" or even more devastating for the President, "I should have voted for Poshard last time, I won't make that same mistake twice."
Either way, the Democrats win easy in a Poshard vs. Edgar race.
However, if the GOP candidate is a fiscal as well as social conservative, this will excite the base, bring them out in big numbers, and in essence give them no reason to vote for the other side regardless of whether or not the Dems run a conservative or a liberal.
And with the hard-line Democratic liberals already declared, a candidate running against a GOP conservative only motivates GOP voters to get out and make sure that their vote counts. Either way, Republicans win big.
Now the real question is this, will the White House realize this in time? But even if they don't, will the voters of Illinois figure out that the good of the entire nation depends on us electing the right kind of candidate in the primary of 2004?
For the sake of the U.S. Senate, I hope we do . . .
Maybe so. But I see this as not just a battle of ideologies, I see it as a fight for the survival of this nation. It seems the Democrats are deliberately trying to drive this nation down to submission to the socialist nations of the world. Look at the way they love the UN. How could they possibly support the UN when the UN has been extremely anti-American the several years. I believe it comes down to the fact that a lot of Democrats are atheists. Atheists have nothing to believe in but their anti-religion ideology, and so they see America as an obstruction to the things they believe in most, and that's why they are trying to bring down this country. Democrats hate the things that make America great. They're doing all they can to drive our businesses out of this country. Why in the world would they do that unless they had a larger agenda. I believe that agenda is the downfall of America because America is the most conservative country and conservatism = Christianity. Their hatred of America is due to their hatred of Christianity. Look at what their hero Clinton did for 8 years, he exported all the high technology weapons he could to China, he gave North Korea nuclear weapons, he allowed terrorist attacks to go unanswered, he took the Muslim side in the Balkins war. These are four very big hints that the Democrats are against this nation. And to top it off Clinton admitted that he believes that America should be brought down a few notches. He's a Democrat, so you can bet that if he believes that, a lot of Democrats believe it. (I know this is a heavy post for what we're talking about, but this is the way I see it and why I'll never vote for a Democrat, it's a lot more than one guy against another guy, it's part of a larger war.)
For example, he told me that he (and a few other congressmen) made a huge mistake voting for the 94 assault weapons ban, but at the time he thought something would be passed & he was afraid it would be much worse than what we got - of course, on the bright side the deal he made is the reason there is a sunset date in the bill & we might be able to kill it next year.
I think if Poshard was really an honest man he wouldn't be a Democrat. There comes a time when you have to support this nation and not your party. This is one reason why I'll never vote for a Democrat. They say they're on our side, but as soon as they get around the other Democrats they march lock-step with them to take away freedoms, just like Poshard did with the gun ban. The Dems are trying the same thing in the southern states, going after the NASCAR vote, they want the votes from the types of people that like NASCAR. Just wait until some of them get elected, they'll vote for the same stuff Gore would vote for, their claims of being NASCAR types of people are all for show.
Perhaps a little harsh. I'll give him the benfit of the doubt and say that he's probably more naive than dishonest. I'm sure there are Democrats that love their country, but there's too many that don't for me to support any that do.
I know for a fact Poshard doesn't think that
The problem is there are some good conservative (socially) democrats that still are democrats because of labor issues - many of which I used to disagree with, but after working as a contract engineer for several major companies in this state, including one that makes big yellow tractors & doesn't give a damn about their employees, I can see some of their points
End corporate taxation and go to a low flat tax, give the corporations a chance to stay here. 36% of Americans don't pay taxes, upper income is paying all the taxes. Everyone is going to have to pay their fair rate. We're taxing ourselves right out of an economy with our "progressive" rates.
End the tendency to turn every bit of land into a national park, especially out west. We have land out there that can be used for farming, domestic animal raising, mined for gold, coal, and OIL (ANWR!)...these industries create real wealth for America, they're not just industries where the same dollar is passed around in services...so in other words, the federal government needs to turn a lot of the land they own to private industry.
We need to quit strapping our companies to environmental regulations that other countries don't adhere to so much. In other words, we need to support non-Kyoto type treaties. Kyoto was an anti-American-industry treaty because it excluded China from worldwide environmental standards. Liberals supported Kyoto big time, another indication that they're trying to destroy the economic base that helps pay for our freedom. We didn't sign on to Kyoto but I don't see any outvry for China to clean up it's act. The world needs to get together and do this before we come up with any new Kyoto-type environmentalism.
Those three would be a big start, I think.
Should be "...conservative solutions...", not "...conservation solutions..."!
He claims he believes it's not right to attach legislation together that doesn't have obvious connections. Why in the world did he pick ANWR to make that point though? We need to cut our oil dependency as soon as possible!
Well, the thing about Poshard is that he's an honest man but he's STILL a party loyalist. During Monicagate, Poshard admitted Clinton had disgraced the White House and even said it would probably be best if Clinton resigned in the event of an impeachment.
But when impeachment came up, guess how Poshard voted? Against on all counts. Only five Democrats were brave enough to break party ranks and he wasn't one of them.
Don't get me wrong, Poshard is infinitely better than a lying murderering scumbag like George Ryan (a "Republican" who defended Clinton during Monicagate!) but to say we can trust him to vote our side is not accurate. He's socially conservative on many issues, but never forget his "lifetime" overall conservative voting average is 45%. Edgar's from the Susan Collins wing of the party, which means he'd probably vote our way at least 60% of the time.
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.