Democratic Party spokesman: Edgar isn't squeaky clean

Chicago Sun-Times ^ | 4/30/03 | Lynn Sweet

[LdSentinal]

WASHINGTON--A spokesman for the U.S. Senate Democrats' political organization said Tuesday that if former Illinois Gov. Jim Edgar runs for the Senate, Democrats will hit him on ethics issues.

The move appears to be designed to discourage the state GOP's most formidable candidate from getting into the race.

"We will use Edgar to put the final nail in the coffin of the Republican Party of Illinois,'' said Brad Woodhouse, the spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

The strategy will be to link Edgar to the scandals of former Gov. George Ryan, which contributed to a near-sweep for Democrats in the November 2002 Illinois contests and to Democrats controlling the Illinois General Assembly.

"We will blame Edgar for all of George Ryan's transgressions," Woodhouse said.

The Democratic committee also is encouraging the campaigns of the major Illinois Democratic Senate candidates to take early swings at Edgar, perhaps to give him a taste of what may lie ahead. An Edgar confidant said the strategy may backfire and work to pull him into the contest rather than out of it.

While Edgar continues to weigh a political comeback in the wake of the surprise decision of Sen. Peter Fitzgerald (R-Ill.) not to seek a second term in 2004, Democratic researchers have been busy.

They are reviewing, Woodhouse said, press clips from Edgar's tenure as governor and secretary of state and are poised to file Freedom of Information requests to learn more about three areas they deem fertile: the Management Services of Illinois scandal, dealing with bribes for contracts; Illinois State Toll Highway Authority corruption, and potential abuses of patronage in the secretary of state's office.

Political analyst Charlie Cook, writing in Tuesday's National Journal's Congress Daily, said the Illinois and Alaska seats "are prime Democratic pick-up opportunities.''

Meanwhile, the National Republican Senatorial Committee commissioned a poll in the wake of Fitzgerald's departure.

"The Democrats are worried because they thought when Sen. Fitzgerald got out, it would be a home run for them,'' said Republican committee spokesman Dan Allen.

"This shows a real nervousness about what a strong candidate Gov. Edgar would be," said Jason Gerwig, a spokesman for the state party.

[LdSentinal]

The Democrats realize their chances of beating Edgar with their crappy candidates would be very difficult.

[PetroniDE]

Considering that Edgar is a RINO (i.e. he raised taxes while Governor), I would prefer that someone else run for that seat. I lived in Illinois at the time.

[Princeliberty]

Actually for once a they are probably telling
the truth about somebody.

Also, despite all Edgar's big talk didn't
state spending actually go up quite a lot
while he was governor?

[PetroniDE]

Jim Thompson was Governor before Edgar. Another tax and spend Republican. I believe he was the one behind the "temporary" increase in Illinois state income tax, and it was Gov. Edgar who made them "half temporary and half permanent", then later made it "all permanent".

I don't live in Illinois anymore, but if he wins the GOP primary for U.S. Senate, I wouldn't vote in that race in '04. Can't vote for a dem, and a 3rd party vote is a vote for a dem.

[jmaroneps37]

Not being "squeaky clean" sounds like a good head start in any race, in Ill. Only New Jersey is more crooked.

[supercat]

I don't live in Illinois anymore, but if he wins the GOP primary for U.S. Senate, I wouldn't vote in that race in '04. Can't vote for a dem, and a 3rd party vote is a vote for a dem.

How is a third-party vote any more or less of a vote for a dem than an uncast vote?

[Lancey Howard]

Yes, the Republican Party of Illinois is as sick and corrupt as New Jersey's and California's. There is no real Republican Party in any of those places. The parasites there are multiplying like flies and those states are gone for good, forever flushed down the liberal toilet. The National GOP needs to concentrate its resources on House seats in those states and not waste money on statewide contests and tax-raising scumbags like Edgar.

[PetroniDE]

How is a third-party vote any more or less of a vote for a dem than an uncast vote?

Good question. I need to partially correct my response since a 3rd party vote is not any more/less of a dem vote as an uncast vote.

My main problem with 3rd parties is that under most election systems, it is mathematically impossible for them to win elections. Since a conservative 3rd party candidate typically siphons votes from Republicans, that is what came to mind when I wrote that response. The only time I would consider a 3rd party candidate would be in a one-on-one contest. A conservative candidate needs to run again Edgar in the GOP primary instead.

There is no 3rd party in existence today (conservative or liberal) strong enough to win three way races. By the time a conservative 3rd party became strong enough to win such races, it would be too late to fix the damage done by the socialists democrats that would run things in the meantime.

If Edgar wins the GOP nomination for U.S. Senate from Illinois, what you have is a dem versus dem in that general election, IMO. In that case, there is no point in voting in that race. I would still vote in other races (President, Congress, State Reps, Bond Issues, etc.) and volunteer for conservative candidates, but I would write-off the U.S. Senate race in that case.

[supercat]

My main problem with 3rd parties is that under most election systems, it is mathematically impossible for them to win elections. Since a conservative 3rd party candidate typically siphons votes from Republicans, that is what came to mind when I wrote that response. The only time I would consider a 3rd party candidate would be in a one-on-one contest. A conservative candidate needs to run again Edgar in the GOP primary instead.

If you aren't going to vote for the Republican, why not vote for a third-party candidate to at least offer a lower-bound for the number of votes the Republicans have wantonly thrown away? How is that any worse than staying at home without voting?

[PetroniDE]

If you aren't going to vote for the Republican, why not vote for a third-party candidate to at least offer a lower-bound for the number of votes the Republicans have wantonly thrown away? How is that any worse than staying at home without voting?

I wouldn't be staying hom; I would still vote in other contests. The race in question here is Edgar vs. dem, which to me is equivalent to dem (fake republican) vs. dem. I'm not going to volunteer and/or vote for a fake republican.

I believe Illinois does NOT have a run-off system (please correct this if I am wrong). With a straight plurality vote, the 3rd party candidate has NO chance, and it would be a wasted vote. If the 3rd party candidate ran in the primary against Edgar then I would support him.

If my assumption above is wrong, and there is a run-off if no-one gets 50%+1, the situation is different. Then the 3rd party candidate has a chance to finish in the top two if enough of the conservative vote was convinced (it would still take much work). Then I would consider the 3rd party candidate, since the potential exists for a one-on-one showdown against the liberal dem.

[supercat]

I wouldn't be staying hom; I would still vote in other contests. The race in question here is Edgar vs. dem, which to me is equivalent to dem (fake republican) vs. dem. I'm not going to volunteer and/or vote for a fake republican.

Again, though, I must ask: how is voting third-party in a particular contest worse than not voting at all in that particular contest?

[PetroniDE]

Again, though, I must ask: how is voting third-party in a particular contest worse than not voting at all in that particular contest?

Because voting for a 3rd party candidate gives the illusion that said party is making progress toward winning future elections. However, all they are doing is splitting the conservative vote, allowing the liberal democrats to win. Conservative members of 3rd parties need to re-join the Republican party, and help to move that party in the direction they want it to go.

That is about as clear as I can make it.

[supercat]

That is about as clear as I can make it.

Okay. In other words, you're more interested in not giving third parties the message that they have a chance at doing anything, than you are in giving the major parties the message that they're throwing your vote away.

Fair enough.

I personally don't think the third parties pose much of a threat in any election where the Republicans don't alienate voters by supporting nonsense like gun control, etc. I'm more interested in trying to let the Republicans know why they lost, in the vain hope that they might manage to find a better candidate next time.

[PetroniDE]

We give the major parties the message when we either "Turn Out to Vote" or "Not Turn Out to Vote". Their internal polling combined with that gives enough message as to why the election turns.

When Republicans don't alienate voters, the third parties tend not to effect things. There I agree with you. However, in close races, 3rd party candidates often determine who wins. Look at Florida in Election 2000 for a prime example.

Time to apply this to the topic thread (Jim Edgar). He alienated the Republicans in Illinois by raising taxes, and he was not tricked by democrats into doing it. If the Republicans don't get someone else to run for that Senate seat, they might as well concede that seat to the democrats and save their resources for REAL Republicans, IMO.

[Corvair]

There is no run-off after the primary. The top vote-getter (plurality or majority) is the party's candidate in the general election.

The following observations/predicitions are based on my years of living/working in Springfield durning and after grad. school as a legislative aide, lobbyist, rules analyst and campaign worker. There are 49 states and then there is Illinois! Comments and criticisms are welcomed.

Jim Edgar would be a decent candidate for the Republicans in this state. Yes, he is a RINO but not completely. During his two terms as governor, state spending actually stagnated for the most part. Also, he balanced the books and paid the backlog of bills to all the service providers, hospitals, pharmacists, etc. that had piled up under Big Jim Thompson.

He is also a Downstater and stood up to Richie Dailey and Mike Madigain (Dem. Speaker of the House and probably one of the best, politically speaking, powerbrokers this state has had in a long time) and told them NO! on many spending and taxing initiatives.

As far as the CMS scandal, yes he had ties to those involved/convicted and that is probably what kept him from running for a 3rd term in '94, but that will be 10 years old news next year and he will not be dragged down by it.

One more thing. It will be very difficult for him to say no to W. Several local and statewide party leaders have already jumped on his bandwagon and this will only multiply in the coming months. Barring some unforseen darkhorse or revelations about Edgar, I predict today, May 4, 2003, that he will be the Republican nominee for US Senate to replace Peter Fitzgerald. I also think he will win the general election as well.

Let the piling on begin. Bill in Morton, IL

[PetroniDE]

I won't pile on you. I can handle disagreement in a gentleman manner. Thanks for confirming my suspicion regarding no-runoff.

Raising taxes is a big NO-NO for me. Would still rather see a real conservative run instead of Edgar. People will remember the raising of the state income tax (I lived in Illinois at the time).

If the race looks close, beware of Chicago vote fraud. No reminder needed what going on there.