The Daily Herald has a fairly interesting article on the likely effect that having Senator John McCain at the top of the GOP ticket will have on Illinois races. There has already been tons of talk (of questionable accuracy, in our opinion) about whether having Obama at the top of the Dem ticket would be devastating to the local GOP. Lots more talk (and, in my opinion, some real questionable assumptions) concerning a supposed trend of Lake County moving rapidly in the blue direction.
Regardless of what the top of the ticket looks like on either side, we have quite a few interesting races shaping up here in Lake County, besides Kirk v. Seals. We also expect things to get even more exciting once the established parties (which includes the Green Party) appoints candidates for seats that have no nominee as of yet.
For example, one thing we wil discuss more in the next few months is the expected re-emergence of Green Party candidate David Kalbfleisch into the IL-10 race, who will likely suck away more votes from Dan Seals than Mark Kirk in the general election. The Link/Couvall Dem machine knocked out Kalbfleisch in a petition challenge that puzzled most people, since everyone knew it was Dem party vice-chair Pete Couvall who filed the challenge, and since everyone also knew the Greens could renominate Kalbfleisch to the open seat after the primary. The move was made probably to send a message, and to humble Kalbfleisch a bit, but I have no reason to suspect he won't be back, and rather ticked off. So, we shall see if his candidacy ends up having any impact.
Aside from IL-10, Here's a just a couple of the ones we'll be watching intently over the months until November:
26th State Senate: Republican Dan Duffy v. Democrat Bill Gentes (Bill Peterson's open seat)
If you haven't yet met Dan Duffy, prepare to be impressed. A younger, self-made businessman who is exactly the kind of motivated, inspiring leader the Lake County GOP needs to make a comeback (and a great electable name to boot). He faces Bill Gentes, Mayor of Round Lake Beach, who has good name recognition and support.
30th State Senate: Democrat Terry Link v. Republican TBA v. Jerry Johnson, Independent (maybe)
This one could be VERY interesting, depending on: who the GOP gets to run (I am pretty darn optimistic about the names being tossed around that I have heard), if Link's petition scandal continues to make headlines (especially of interest will be the results of the Lake County State's Attorney's investigation), and whether local Dems (like Eddie Washington) finally turn against their leader and his right-hand man Pete Couvall. Adding former North Chicago Mayor Jerry Johnson as an independent to the mix would further complicate things, perhaps positively for the GOP, since Johnson would be more likely to suck off voters from Link that even a great GOP candidate might not be able to reach.
60th State Rep: Democrat Eddie Washington v. Republican TBA
This one will be interesting, assuming the GOPers get a decent candidate, as an indication about how far inter-party Dem warfare will really go. Would the Dem/Link machine continue to try to replace Washington, figuring any successful GOP candidate would be easier pickings next cycle?
58th State Rep: Democrat Karen May v. Republican Tim Stratton
Has anyone noticed that the Lake County GOP candidates are really pretty darn impressive as a group? Add attorney Tim Stratton to Dan Duffy and Steve Greenberg as some of the new group of younger candidates with great backgrounds and credentials, that Lake County citizens will have the privilege of supporting in this next election. Stratton faces an uphill battle against entrenched incumbent Karen May, but we hear he has a few tricks up his sleeve, so this one also makes our watch list.
8th Congressional District: Democrat Melissa Bean v. Republican Steve Greenberg
Dem Melissa Bean seems to have been just barely holding on every year since her win over Phil Crane in what used to be a decidely Republican district. But, Bean knows her district and works it (often teaming up with moderate Republican Mark Kirk on various initiatives, to the utter annoyance of Dan Seals) , and is well-funded. Greenberg has proven to be able to raise funds, and is another young businessman that the Republicans would do well to support, but will Greenberg be able to do it this year, or steal a page from Bean's playbook and get resigned to a two-cycle race?
Battle of the Docs for Lake County Coroner: Democrat Richard Keller, M.D., v. Mike Oster, M.D.:
Dr. Richard Keller, who seems to be a bit of a goofball to me, based on his appearance, won this seat after long-time (and much loved and respected) incumbent Barbara Richardson retired, on a bit of a fluke, and the fact he was a medical doctor, which many people will tell you is not a requirement for the position of coroner, but nevertheless is a credential that seems to reasonate with the public. To fight fire with fire, the GOP recruited an emergency room doctor, Mike Oster, to run against Keller. Given Keller's slim win, and Oster's better credentials, the GOP has targeted this office as the first step in its take-back-the-county-wides program.
Judicial Subcircuits: You may have forgotten (but we haven't) that our fearless Senator Link resisted adding any new judgeships to Lake County until he could be sure that these judgeships would be elected by subcircuits, which were designed to break the virtual lock the GOP had on the Lake County judiciary. Republican judges Val Ceckowski and George Bridges take on Democratic attorneys Jay Ukena and David Weinstein. Both GOP judges are extremely well-respected, so I wonder if Link's plan has any chance of working, at least this time around.
So, readers, what other locals races will be hot? Which seats are most likely to switch? Consider this a local election open thread.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
28 comments:
Regarding the 26th State Senate Race: I refused to vote for duffy in the primary and will not vote for him in the general. May even go so far as to vote for the democrat on principle. I know that rankles a lot of "yellow-dog Republicans", esp. the ones in my township republican group, who feel if it's labeled republican you must vote for it. However, I am still very angry about the dirty politics that were used to kick all republican challengers to duffy off of the primary ticket. I walked and filled several petitions for one such person who shall remain nameless (there were 3 that the central committee forced off the ballot). This person had a ton of grassroots support, and the central committee started wetting their pants because of it and used blackmail (really a minor technicality) to force him off the ballot because he wasn't the rich young annointed one they had chosen for us. This is Chicago democrat style stuff. What are we doing? Dont' illinois republicans have enough problems without stooping to this garbage? Whatever happened to the voters deciding who would be their nominee?
I bring this up now that the primary is over. As I mentioned earlier, Illinois Republicans have a lot of public image issues and we don't really need the untoward publicity right now, but I do think we need change in the state party. As a newly elected committeeman, I intend to use my votes to do what little I can.
Ticked-off: I suppose I invited this whole discussion by talking about Dan Duffy in the first place, but we might as well get it over with. You are simply wrong about Dan Duffy's opponent, (and we may as well name him here, Rod Drobiniski, since it's all public record and politics), being "blackmailed" by the Central Committee to force him off the ballot.
You don't name names, but the Central Committee rarely acts as a unified body, so it is clear what you are talking about is Chairman Dan Venturi. Venturi is a hard working individual in a completely thankless job as county chairman, and is an easy target for whatever anyone thinks is the "problem" with the Lake County GOP... problems that started 10 years before Dan was voted chairman. It may take 10 more years to fix the problems, but I am sure we are headed in the right direction. You think you have a better person for the job, name him or her.
To get back to the point, there simply was no "blackmail" by the Central Committe or Venturi. None. If you have a different understanding, let's hear it, and maybe by confronting the truth, you might see things a bit differently.
I know Rod Drobinski very well, and he is a friend of mine. I told Rod I was supporting Dan at the beginning of the race, and why that was, and Rod was fine with that. Frankly, it's what primaries are all about, and coming together afterwards as Republicans is what is important, a lesson that seems to have been lost on you, Ticked-off.
I and a number of other indivduals raised the issue that was of concern with Drobinski with him before he announced, and Rod was convinced it was a non-issue. Rod went ahead and began preparations to run. At some point before petition filing, he changed his mind about that issue being a non-issue.
Why exactly Rod changed his mind, you need to ask Rod, because I am not going to allow any further damage to his political career by spelling it all out here. When you are a lawyer (as Rod is) and especially an Assistant State's Attorney (as Rod is), the 'minor technicality' you gloss over has the potential to be a career-ending issue, and it's clear that you really don't understand what the problem was, and what the implications for Rod were.
But so-called "blackmail" can only affect someone if there is truth to it. So, if there was some issue that was going to confront Rod, and he dropped out of the race because he felt it was concern to his candidacy, that is hardly "blackmail." Whatever the issue with a candidate might be, you can expect the opposition to exploit it, so calling a primary opponent (Duffy) on his willingness to raise an issue that you know the Dems will use, simply doesn't meet any definition of blackmail that I am familiar with.
Let me tell you something else. You and others that think you are standing up for Rod, you are doing him a serious disservice. Rod dropped out of the race to prevent an issue that would have been in the campaign from damaging his political career. When Rod wants to run for another office, it will not be an issue because he did the correct thing, and everyone respects him for it. Considering his job as an Assistant State's Attorney, he could do no less. However, by continuing to raise this issue, and acting like Rod was the victim, you force Duffy and Venturi and the Central Committe to defend their actions, thereby drawing attention to an issue that could still negatively affect Rod if it is not allowed to fade away, as it should, because it is no longer an issue.
The Central Commitee did not blackmail Rod Drobinski, and neither did Duffy. The CC especially considers Rod one of up-and-coming stars, and it had no reason to hurt Rod politically, in fact, I am confident that in Rod's next race, he will have the backing of many, many 'establishment' Republicans, including many on the Central Committee, and especially including me. Interestingly, it was Dan Duffy, not Rod, who really was the non-establishment candidate, as Rod had been around the party and was Waukegan Township Chairman. Duffy was a fresh face and had never been involved with Lake County GOP politics who decided to run long before Rod had ever announced his intention to run.
You need to have a serious heart-to-heart TALK with Rod before you spend the entire season campaigning against Dan Duffy in the mistaken belief that you are defending Rod, because what you are really doing is torpedoing Rod's future political career. So if you really are a Rod supporter, you will ASK HIM if he thinks this is really helping him. If Rod has been telling you he supports your actions, come back and tell us, because I need to have another talk with him.
It's sad we have to air this in a public forum, but it's probably better we discuss this now than in November. If Dan Duffy loses, it will be because of Republicans, not because of Democrats. And if Rod's political career is ruined, it will be because of misguided (but sincere at heart, I am sure) supporters who think they are doing the right thing, but really are not.
Hmm, don't recall saying I was campaigning against Duffy. I just have serious problems with the way this was handled. And how do you know I was referring to the person you named? I didn't name names for the very reasons you stated, i.e. ruining careers, ect. if you are as connected as you imply you know there where also 2 others that were told by the committee that if they ran against duffy their careers would effectively be over. You can deny it, as I'm sure you will, but you know its true.
I was mainly venting in my first post, as its been a frustrating primary season for me, but I should have mentioned another reason I won't vote for duffy is his pro-choice stance. The way I understand his stance is that "personally" he's pro life but he thinks a woman has a right to choose. Maybe he's changed that stance, I haven't heard. If he has, kudos to him for being a politician.
I guess here's what ticks me off the most, and that's being told I don't have a choice who to vote for. I understand and realize that the individuals who chose not to seek the nomination did just that: chose. But did it really have to be this way?
Ticked-off: Don't lay down the law and then pick it up again. Re-read your original comment and you will understand exactly why your comment invited my response. You can't accuse anyone, especially the Central Committee, of blackmail and not expect a firm response, because it's simply not true.
As to the identity of the opponent, the ONLY candidate that had any issues that I have heard being labeled as "blackmail" was Rod. I know the story because, among other things, I am friends with both Rod and Dan Duffy. I have told Rod that he needs to communicate with his supporters that think they are doing him a favor by playing him up as a victim. It's only going to hurt him.
But, as I said, if there are still folks such as yourself out there that insist on perpetuating this issue, we may as well squelch it out in the open now, before it becomes an issue at the convention or worse, in November.
No one is telling you how to vote. Come to a Central Committee meeting sometime and hear what goes on for yourself (if you can stay awake).
I'm not privy to the details of the particular race being discussed here, but I offer a few comments as one who has been involved from begining to end with Republican primaries and generals here in Lake Co.
First, no one "forces" or "blackmails" anyone to not participate in a primary. If you don't have the balls to stand up to your own party's leadership, and run in a primary if you absolutely want to, why on earth would anyone vote for you? I'm not suggesting that in-fighting is a good thing, but if you don't have a backbone, you're not a leader that I would vote for.
Second, if you don't have the guts to take a stand in the face of purported "dirt" that someone purportedly has on you, how on earth are you going to win a battle in the trenches during the general? If the "skeleton" or "dirt" isn't really all that dirty, why not have the courage to take a stand and expose it for what it is (or is not)? Again, if you don't have a backbone within your own party, the voters will see it and you will loose. If you bow out in the face of the purported "dirt," one can only conclude that it was somehow real dirt and it was serious enough for you to quit.
Finally, I think it is the job of party leadership to provide frank and honest assessments to potential candidates on thier electability, both positive and negative. If a candidate truly has a weekness that could spell doom in a general election, it would be a gross failure of the party to not point it out. The candidate, and the candidate alone, chooses to continue or quit in the face of the potential problem. Again, if the candiate is too much of a whimp to deal with thier own "negatives" during a primary, why on earth would anyone think they could deal with all the tough battles that are sure to come in the general.
Bottom line, if you can't take the heat before a primary even begins, and deal with any "bagage" you may have, how on earth can you look in the mirror and consider yourself a viable candidate in a general election?
A few thoughts from someone who has been there and done that...
I read the Daily Herald article and quite frankly, I think McCain is good for Illinois. He has never marched in step with the Party and instead voted his his conscience.
November is a long way off and the next several months will shed light on both presidential nominees. At the end of the day, I feel most folks will vote for the war hero, the independent thinker, and the proven leader over the young senator possessing examplary oratory skills but no record of accomplishments.
OK, I hereby retract the use of the word "blackmail" in my original post. It is a strong word and does not apply in this situation. Let's let this be a lesson to all, don't oost without a sufficient amount of coffee coursing through your veins. And do let the record show that I am not campaigning against duffy, as TA accused me of. I simply will not vote for him. This will be my last post on this, as I have no desire to keep perpetuating this, again as being accused of.
This is one of the few political blogs I enjoy reading since all opinions seem to be permitted. I may continue to post, maybe under a different name, maybe not.
Just look at the Democratic ticket:
Dan "Unemployed" Seals
Terry "Dead Signature" Link
Eddie "My God is Allah" Washington
Richard "Crrrazy as a Koot" Keller
What's not to love? And they all back Rod "Gettin's Indicted Soon" Blagojevich.
Annon 10:35 -
Good lineup. Don't forget some of the other backers of these loonies:
Jan "My Husband is a Felon" Shackowski
Lauren "Record FEC Fine" Beth-Gash
Kathy "I Follow the Leader Because I'm Clueless" Ryg
Attacking someone for their religious faith is low. There are plenty of reasons not to like an elected official or canidate, religion isn't one of them.
Annon 11:14 -
I agree. Annon 10:35 is a bot off base with that one.
Anon 11:14 In Washington's case he has actually publicly said that his god is at war with our god and his god is gonna win.
He is the one that invited the focus on the differences between his brand of Islam and Christianity.
TA, I disagree that Kalbfleisch will drain more votes from Seals than Kirk.
The one-issue environmental voters will be voting for Mark and his stellar environmental record this time around. He is once again voting in a way to make the Sierra Club and League of Conservation voters happy.
As long as Mark remains a champion of the environment, this is not a district where the Green Party will make an impact. Mark strayed a little between 2004 and 2006, but has corrected his course.
If what Anon 11:38 says it true, it sounds like Mr. Washington is the one who should be taken to task on the religious issue.
Prof Peabody, check it out:
http://www.acitizensvoice.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=59&Itemid=2
Go to the link, read the article... check out the quote.
That link didnt work.
http://www.acitizensvoice.com/
index.php?option=com_content
&task=view&id=59&Itemid=2
Combine all those into one line
with no spaces.
Here is the easy link for the story on Eddie Washington's Islam quote, as we reported a few weeks ago in the post "Is Dan Seals Showing Impaired Judgment in Supporting Eddie Washington?"
I don't know Eddie Washington personally, but I would hope that the quote that is attributed to him was somehow taken out of context, or he otherwise didn't really mean to suggest that the God of Islam and the Christian God (and followers) are somehow at war, or should be.
Kalbfleisch has some videos up on his youtube site:
http://www.youtube.com/kalbfleischcampaign
Although he does look very young, he seems articulate enough. I'm interested to see how the local press receives him.
Check out NY Times article today on how Kirk is soliciting suggestions online from constituents and lobbyists to help him write up earmarks.
Anon 8:47,
The earmark process provides a mechanism for local projects to receive federal funding. The problem with earmarks is that they are often solicited, requested and awarded in secret. Kirk's approach to earmarks could provide a blueprint for reforming the entire system.
Kirk operates in "sunshine" soliciting requests from constituents and publicizing his requiests.
He would be doing the district a disservice if he did not pursue available federal funds for projects that will improve the lives of people living here.
For all blind Pup supporters out there who are thinking about attacking Kirk for actually being transparent and open about how, why and for what purpose he secures Federal funds for the people of the 10th District, make sure you're ready to take a couple of positions on behalf of the Pup:
1) If elected, The Pup won't be bringing Federal money home to the 10th District like Kirk does;
2) The Pup thinks that bringing money back to the 10th District, like Kirk does, is a bad, bad, bad thing, especially when voters of the 10th District weigh in on where and what the funds are needed for; and
3) If elected and he does end up trying to bring money back to the 10th District (where I almost forgot, he doesn't live), the Pup will do it not out in the open, like Kirk does, but rather under a cloud of secrecy, based on some back room deal he cuts with Barry, Teddy and his loony lefty buddy Al Franken.
Good luck with that one kids, it must be amatur hour at the Pup campaign. Next?
Badge of Honor and ICBP are right on target on the earmark discussion. Congressman Kirk has always been open, up-front and very transparent in his requests. He publishes them in the Tribune, he talks about them, he asks constituents about unmet needs that need his help. Who has an issue with this? One guess.
This again points out how little the Pup and his team of "advisors" truly know about government. It shows. It's also good to point out that with Mr. Kirk's rising seniority within the full Appropriations Committee he is in a good position to be legally helpful where and when it's needed. And you can count on our Congressman to continue to be open and honest with what he does and how he does it. What a concept. Hope the other side can learn how to do the same one day.
Dan Seals commissioned a new poll showing he gets 39% to Mark's 46%. Somehow--in the parallel universe inhabited by Dan and his crowd-- this seems to translate (via anti-incumbency) into a huge lead for Dan.
Those are not the kind of numbers Camp Pup and the D-trip want to see given Seals is just coming off a pretty big primary win and Kirk hasn't even begun to campaign in earnest.
I think many Republican voters will be pleasantly surprised by Dave Kalbfleisch. His position on Iraq not withstanding, he isn't nearly the ultra liberal people are probably expecting him to be. He's much like Ron Paul in many ways, and he will definitely make the race more interesting.
...and we all know where Ron Paul ended up. I smile everytime I come to this blog.
It's so nice to see everyone so excited about politics and where our country is going.
To be up on the latest news of what is happening in our country go to Google Video, then search for ENDGAME.
It will open your eyes to the TRUTH.
God Bless America!
I find the Judicial Sub Circuit races very curious by way of the Democratic Contenders. Why did Senator Link's "Party of Inclusion" tap 2 middle-age white men to oust a Woman and African-American. This will not be overlooked by Democratic voters as "just politics".
Post a Comment