State Rep. Michael McAuliffe might be an even stronger choice for mayor. He, Doherty, and County Commissioner Silverti share the same office space and distingustion of being the "lone elected Chicago Republican" in their respective offices. McAuliffe represent's Doherty's ward in springfield, plus portions of three other wards that are majority RAT (unlike the 41st) and a tiny bit of suburbia. The RATs tried to eliminate during re-districting by putting him in the same district with Chicago's longest serving Dem Rep, Ralph Capperelli. (guess having 59 out of 60 Chicago districts wasn't enough for them, they wanted all 60). But McAuliffe handily beat Capperilli. He's about a 75% conservative guy. Little too cozy with big government spending and handouts to be the ideal guy, but far better than a RAT. He also has a "B" rating from the NRA in a city where everyone else has Ds and Fs
State Sen. Meeks is conservative on a handful of social issues (mainly abortion, traditional marriage, and school vouchers) but a hard-left marxist on everything else. I never trusted him since he's Jesse Jack@$$'s right hand man. Also, he put on the farce of being "Independent" of the two parties to get himself elected Senator, then quickly switched to the RAT party (and voted with them when needed on all major bills) once he had dispatched the official Democrat. Shades of a future Mark Kirk? Though I will have to begrugenly admit he's probably the most "conservative" Dem we could hope for as Mayor. Too bad the Mayor's office has very little influence on social issues like abortion.
I agree John Cox would probably earn about 2% of the vote citywide, even after throwing away several million on his campaign. Cox keeps coming in a distant last place and has proven he can't attract voters in election after election. I love Dan Proft, but I can't see him doing much better. His image is a GOP partisan pitbull. That's absolutely the worse style to have for a Chicago race. I'm not saying we need a Kirk style RINO, but a charmastic conservative who seems "above" party politics would probably fair the best in Chicago, where they react to the word "Republican" like Superman does to kyponite.
Gidwitz would be ideal -- solid resume, lots of money, right-of-center, well liked by both parties -- but the huge factor where he's lacking is personality. The guy has none. His candidacy puts people to sleep, that's why we came in last place in the 2006 GOP governor's primary despite having the most effective anti-Topinka ads and being acceptable to "moderates"
Now that I think about, the person most likely to get elected if he publicly came out as a Republican is none other than Mayor Daley's son. The guy is already a DINO who voted for Bush for President and not only supported the Iraq War, but enlisted to show his support (touche, Michael Moore). Of course the issue here is the fact that a Daley family would never, EVER switch his party affliation to Republican, especially the Mayor's son. They'd disown him. That's a crime worse than treason in Chicago's version of the Kennedy clan.
BB,
You forget that as you’ve said before, the Daley family has a history of party switching when convenient when it benefitted them.
If Meeks runs, the Pubbies should back him, IMO. If Meeks doesn’t run, the Republicans could use the candidate to build the organization that is lacking so that they take a couple aldermanic seats and have more strength in 2012 countywide and statewide races. So then the question is which candidate for mayor would be best to advance the team? Gidwitz has that ability. If the Republicans can find attractive, articulate candidates for alderman then Gidwitz can stand behind them and let them speak. He won’t win. But the team will win a couple and build for next year.