A Republican state senator who appeared in campaign commercials for President Barack Obama says he’s considering a run for Illinois governor.
Sen. Kirk Dillard of Hinsdale told Chicago’s WFLD-TV on Thursday that it’s time for a change after six years of Democratic rule in Illinois that started with ousted former Gov. Rod Blagojevich.
Here’s that Obama campaign ad to refresh your memory…
* The Question: Can Dillard overcome that TV ad in a GOP primary? Explain.
I tend to side with word, but I am going to go out on a limb and suggest a different answer.
I would say he does nto need to “overcome” the ad to prevail. The IL gop has been suffering for the lack of a moderate canidate. Dillard can actually point to the ad to play up his ability to work across the aisle and strenghten his credentials as a moderate. This in tunr will help him draw in more mod GOP members and perhaps draw a few independents into the primary to support somone who supported the now President. Dillard could also imply his support for Obama would help him in Washington in obtaining benefits for IL, even though he is a memebr of the GOP.
Yes. Only an idiot would hold his bipartisan, kind,and true words about a colleague against him. That colleague is now the POTUS. Sen. Dillard’s whole life will be judged by that one item? Come to think of it, there are a lot of idiots in the Republican Primary. That’s why they keep losing.
It will probably depend on how popular, or unpopular, Obama is when primary time rolls around.
If the economy seems to be stabilizing or turning around and Obama’s approval remains high, it will help or at least not hurt. If the economy continues to slide or some huge foreign crisis or scandal erupts that calls Obama’s ability to govern into question and tanks his approval ratings, then, it will hurt him.
No. While he would be a very strong candidate against whoever ends up as the Democratic nominee, he will never get out of the primary.
This is amazingly typical of the ILGOP. Despite the poor performance of the gov and the legis. post-Blago, the ILGOP will still find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Instead of a moderate who can win, they will go with somebody from the far right who is sure to lose.
I think it will be difficult to overcome, not impossible.
That said, if he somehow wins the GOP nomination, that ad does more to re-brand him as a “different” type of Republican than just about anything else I can imagine. He would be very formidable in a General Election.
Boscobud, your logic is way off. The ad doesn’t exist in a vacuum. His comments can be used in a new ad.
- Louis G. Atsaves - Thursday, Jun 11, 09 @ 12:06 pm:
He can overcome it through the “reaching across the aisle” argument, which also applies to segments of the GOP in Illinois. The “I can work with everyone to break up the crippling log jam in Springfield” message will resonate even with the majority of GOP voters, but not with the hard core vocal minority. It won’t be easy for him, as a group is out there that will never forgive him.
It is going to be very hard, he will get nailed with it during the primary. I would go as far as to say imposible.
Activist Republicans (think committeemen and the like) generally did not respond well to it (to say the least) and are/will hold it against him. Trust me folks besides the right wing of the party were upset about it.
Isn’t the only factor against him but it’s a big one…
It will be tough, but I think so. Republicans and Dems alike flock towards candidates that look like winners (see Barack Obama). People will overlook certain flaws and disagreements to join someone that looks like a winner. Dilliard has the look of a winner. Good pedigree, can unite the country club and the social conservative republicans and a record to run on. The true nuts of the party will beat him up over it, but they have two outlets to split their votes (Brady and Proft). In a 4 or 5 person race, enough will be drawn to Dillards ability to look like a winner.
Yes he can overcome it to win the primary. It shows bi-partisanship something that rarely exists these days, and shows a friendship between the two while in the state senate.
Also, it’s not like this commercial had a big impact on Iowa or the Prez campaign folks.
DILLARD ENDORSED AND SUPPORTED MCCAIN.
The 2010 election should focus on the corrupt Dems not a silly commercial. By the way, outta everyone else exploring a bid Dillard has the best chance in November.
No, no, a thousand times no. “Ghost” said ‘The IL gop has been suffering for the lack of a moderate canidate.’ (sic) Good God, what do you call Topinka? Moderate Republicans are sheep liberals in RINO clothing. They may be able to get elected in their District but can’t get elected in the General election. The Republican Party needs a conservative candidate, not another ‘moderate’. Can a conservative get elected; I don’t know, but I know a moderate can’t. Judy proved that. Liberals love touting Republican moderates because they know it divides the Republican Party.
He can certainly try and use it to his advantage but the Illinois GOP primary has proven to be the graveyard of some good political hopefuls in the past few elections. Those with possibilities are torn up by those seeking power. In my opinion this Republican primary will be no different in that the best and brightest will be destroyed by the vicious attacks of desperate opponents. An “If I can’t win, I’ll see that you don’t either” attitude. Lack of unity, lack of a common cause or goal, and chaos in the overall structure. I can still remember when there was a well organized and disciplined GOP in Illinois. Now we seem to be fighting our way to the bottom.
No. 38 percent of republicans told the washington post polling group this morning they are frustrated with their leadership. part of the reason we are frustrated with our “leaders” is because of things like this.
Dillard endorsed the most liberal democrat to be elected to the white house in our generation, he let obama, an Illinois democrat holding a u.s. senate seat that could have been used to stop legislation like card check and big spending bills, use his name to gain credentials as a bi-partisan guy.
Dillard is a RINO, like LaHood and I have no interest in supporting a guy like that for anything ever.
As well he was cited in the u of i clout scandal this morning in the tribune as one of the state legislators who traded influence. That does not inspire confidence in me that he will do anything to change springfield.
As a Dem. I think Dillard should be the biggest worry out there. He did work for Thompson and Edgar because he was another pretty face. He is very sharp. That being said the GOP in a primary tend to eat there young (and old and everyone else). But with enough wacko’s in the primary then anything is possible. Sorry, to the question, yes I think it hurts him in a primary because it will be a focus for those with no issues. But most of them already wouldn’t vote for Dillard anyway.
NO. The ad is one more example of Dillard trying to pander to all sides.
If you listen to him and follow his career, he tries to always have it both ways- I’m a moderate/ we need conservative values; Obama’s great/ I love McCain; Blago is terrible/ I voted for Blago’s pension bond deal; no new taxes/ voted to raise RTA sales tax.
He’s a Springfield politician. That is not what we need to lead IL out of this disaster. It’s certainly not what the GOP needs to win.
===one of the state legislators who traded influence===
He didn’t “trade” anything. He used his influence on behalf of his constituents who asked. Unless there were campaign contributions that match up with the timing, what you wrote is just not true.
Absolutely not, not even if the country-clubber act-like-Democrats wing of the party turns out in force. It’s been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that nominating people that act like Democrats is a doomed to failure strategy.
What’s “moderate” about Dillard? If you read that letter to his colleagues, he sounds like a conservative Republican…even calls himself one. Is he “moderate” because he’s “bipartisan”?
Full disclosure we haven’t seen the email chains to know the conversations that lead to those kids getting into the u of i, so you can’t say for sure as to whether or not dillard did it out of the goodness of his heart. As well with higher education being cut from budgets lately, you wonder if a state lobbyist isn’t going to see the writing on the wall and wonder if denying anything to a state rep won’t cost them funding. On twitter I have been asking the tribune staff to provide numbers but not names of the applicants that were clouted in by legislators so that we can see whether these kids were egregious examples of clout.
In any case dillards involvement with u of i clout takes away his argument as a change agent.
I’m having a hard time believing those who are saying he won’t be able to overcome it because the conservatives won’t stand for it, or because McKenna, Proft, et al will beat him over the head with it. Those positions assume that the conservatives in this state carry any significant influence, even in a primary and/or that McKenna, Proft, et al have any significant influence over the GOP as a whole.
You all do remember that JBT won the primary in 2006 over her much more “conservative” counterparts, right?
And let’s not forget there were a lot of Republicans who voted for Obama.
So, to the original question, Yes. I do think he can overcome the ad. The moderate camp in this state will tire easily if McKenna, Proft, et al try to beat him over the head with it continually or if the conservatives try to run another Oberweis-like candidate.
No, he won’t make it through the primary. Dillard and that TV commercial will go hand-in-hand with GOP voters. Either they will remember on their own or his opponents will make sure they remember.
As a Republican committeeman in the suburbs I won’t carry his literature when I walk my precinct.
He knew what he was doing when he did that commercial.
- Ravenswood Right Winger - Thursday, Jun 11, 09 @ 12:55 pm:
Yes, he can overcome it if Brady/Proft/whoever split the conservative vote.
I hope not. Dillard is probably their best hope to win the general and he would probably be an excellent governor. I’m hoping that enough crackpots turn out in the primary to elect one of the same goofball extremists that the Illinois GOP is famous for.
If he does win the primary the ad will be a big plus for him because Illinoisians love their President.
No way. And it’s not just the ad but his strange explanation of it. He praises Obama and defends the ad and then claim 100 percent loyalty to McCain, all with a straight face. It’s classic Springfield doubletalk and shows why a 16-year State Sen might not be the best choice for those looking for a change.
While my initial reaction was No; I guess my response would be who will challenge him? None of the previous also rans will be able to compete.
To the extent a worthy candidate emerges, his support of Obama only hurts him among the base because Obama has turned out to be just a shade left of Chairman Mao and Comrade Marx. Had Obama stayed in the middle, as he advertised during his election, then Dillard would be able to survive and get to the general.
All the details about what he supported and what he said won’t mean anything without the funding to get the message out. Right now, none of his known challengers have the money or the message to get it done.
Unfortunately, I think the debate is somewhat any exercise in futility unless the GOP can get their act together . . . Oh where have you gone Joe DiMaggio!
YNM
Oby and Brady together came out to be 51% JBT got 36% oby got 33%. As for Dillard his pro life bona fides are gone because of his Obama endorsement GONE! He worked for Thompson and Edgar how is that Change? The party has been fighting for 10 years to rid us of the Thompson Edgar combine; now you think the base just goes back? He sided with Daley to raise taxes for the CTA. But the backing of the Commie and Chief will be his downfall. Born Alive infant protection act.
There is another candidate who can get both sides together without the baggage of the combine. Gidwitz
Dillard can use this to his advantage that he will be the one who can work with both Democrats and Republicans. What’s there to overcome, an ad showing you can play well with others no matter what their political party is?
I don’t think democrats get it. Every time LaHood or Dillard shows up with one of these big wet ones for Obama, I feel like I just got kicked in the holyland. It’s a sign of the disconnect between the party elite and the party grassroots.
Dillards experience does not impress me. The GOP has gone from in power to out of power during his reign, and his u of i clout ties sicken me.
Proft is sure to be all over him on this issue–a lose-lose situation for Dillard. If Dillard doesn’t respond, Proft’s going negative is successful in scaring away the base. If he responds to Proft, it looks like two minnows sparring in a shark tank(ok maybe a dolphin tank in the case of the ILGOP).
Keep in mind that when you refer to “the state” you refer to an entity that extends considerably south of I-80. A great deal of the GOP base is in Southern Illinois. When that ad hits the airwaves here, Dillard is toast… Unless there are multiple conservative candidates and the central/southern vote gets split up again like ‘06.
i just dont get why everything thinks dillard is this great moderate…hes really conservative and seemingly very little seperates him from any other candidates in the race…pro-life, pro-gun elected official-thats exciting…
===You all do remember that JBT won the primary in 2006 over her much more “conservative” counterparts, right?===
Yep. And then she lost in the general by a full 9 points, while up against an incumbent under known heavy scrutiny by the feds - which is kind of my point.
If you believe Republicans are closed-minded boobs, then your answer to this question reflects your closed-minded attitude towards the GOP, and you’ll claim that Dillard couldn’t possibly win in the GOP primary.
Of course he could. After Thompson in 1976, 1978, 1982, 1986, Edgar in 1990 and 1994, Ryan in 1998, Ryan in 2002 and Topinka in 2006, the GOP has proven repeatedly over the past thirty years that someone like Dillard to also be nominated.
Only if the ILGOP decides that winning statewide is important. I don’t see that happening anytime soon. Anybody read the comments about this on IL Review? Nasty is a kind description of the vitriol there.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Thursday, Jun 11, 09 @ 1:53 pm:
This ad won’t even be an issue in a Republican primary.
Republican primary voters will be voting based on:
- Taxes
- Guns
- Abortion
- Democratic corruption
Obama hasn’t raised taxes, taken away guns, increased abortions or been tainted by corruption, so you can’t really use him to connect on Dillard with any of those issues.
Not to mention the fact that you can bet a record number of suburban independents will be voting in the GOP primary, and they LOVE Obama and bipartisanship and HATE old-school politics.
Sure, he can overcome that in a primary. With an IL GOP so decimated, anything can happen, especially when the rest of the field is so weak.
And forget about Proft. The Cicero sleaze is worse than ever. (Didn’t anyone see the latest on the sexual harrassment claims? The town’s new spokesperson is also from Dan’s firm Urquhart Media. They are out there now bullying and trying to intimidate female sexual harrassment victims. That should play well with voters.)
And whoever said Andy McKenna would be working against Dillard, don’t be so sure. My guess is Dillard could very well end up being McKenna’s candidate and the candidate of the GOP’s finance committee (and yes, Dillard can overcome that association too).
Bill Brady is done too. The McKenna crowd used up that stooge. He’s of no value to them anymore. Even McKenna knows Brady doesn’t have what it takes, and that’s pretty scary.
But this is all whistling past the graveyard in any case. The IL GOP has done zip to repair itself. If Lisa Madigan gets in, it’s over. Even Quinn would win easily given the IL GOP’s ineptitude.
YDD, I would add one word to your assertion that Obama hasn’t “raised taxes, taken away guns, increased abortions or been tainted by corruption” That word is “YET”.
A lot could happen in the next 6-8 months — maybe not in the sense of an actual statistical increase in taxes, abortions or gun restrictions, but in moves that could lead to such in the future(e.g. the Freedom of Choice Act). And scandal is always unpredictable.
So, I stand by my prediction that how this ad affects Dillard’s chances to win the primary hinges on how Republican voters are feeling about Obama when primary time rolls around. And that could still change very significantly.
I am not sure it really hurts him. First of all, he is just talking about Obama’s bi-partisan credentials, which is funny in itself, but that’s another discussion. You know there were a lot of Republicans who voted for Obama. It might actually help him if Obama remains popular, because then Dillard looks like the guy who is willing to put the partisan rhetoric aside and extend the olive branch. I just think that the Democrats have proved over the last six or seven years they can’t get it done.
Senator Dillard is an etremely intelligent man and a great fundraiser and would be an outstanding Governor, who has shown his ability to be bi-partisan
Like him personally, but not sure he is trusted by members of his own caucus. Appearing in the Obama ad will be interpreted at best that he goes for the short term headline without considering the long term effect. While all Republican primary voters will know that he appeared supportive in an Obama ad,(a BIG negative) most will have a difficult time remembering something unique and positive about him that cant be said about someone else in the race or that seperates him positively from the pack. Hard to see him besting Brady anywhere South of 80 and hard to see him coming out of Dupage with a large vote as he will be splitting things with Schillerstrom and others. While a very ambitious and bright guy, it will be an extremely tough race for him to even place or show. Got to consider him a long shot for the winner’s circle.
I am afraid that political ad by Mr. Dillard will always come back to haunt him. I consider myself to be a Republican somewhere in the middle between moderate and conservative. I would balk at supporting Dillard because of his poorly thought out decision to make that ad for his friend Barack Obama. It shows me that he lacks the ability to use good judgement. Who is “the real” Mr. Dillard? Because I don’t know, I won’t be able to comfortably vote for him.
It will eventually come down to a battle between Bill Brady (a moderate Conservative) and Dan Proft (an unabashed Conservative). Proft won’t apologize for being a conservative. Brady will apologize if that is what it takes to get moderate Democrat and Independent votes. Both are good men. But I think GOP conservatives are going to throw their support only behind a guy who refuses to pander to the numerous and varied special interest groups. I don’t want a guy who “babbles in tongues” when confronted by the media as to his political views. I want a governor of substance and not one who is all fluff. I want a guy who simply states what his beliefs are and refuses to run away from them. I want a guy who goes against his Party leadership when he knows that they are in the wrong. Someone who yells at the top of his lungs when he sees unethical behaviour, no matter who it is. At least, I will know who and what I am dealing with this way. I don’t want a “shape-shifter”. We already have too many of them in Springfield and Washington. Mr. Gidwitz found out before that lots of money doesn’t get you the necessary votes that will be required. “Passion” is what is required to get people’s votes.
- You've Got to Be Kiddin Me - Thursday, Jun 11, 09 @ 2:51 pm:
Proft???, be serious, he’s not even close to a winnable candidate…of course we have nothing to worry about if he runs his campaign like he’s try to run others….he will lose, just like all the campaigns he has run for state-wide…plus didn’t he work for Lee Daniels and Tristano….
The only reason JBT got the nomination is the conservative votes were divided between three conservative candidates. And the IL GOP leadership threw a massive hissy fit because the conservatives dared to explain why JBT was the wrong choice.
- View from the Cheap Seats - Thursday, Jun 11, 09 @ 3:31 pm:
Back to the question - No. The GOP will be very strongly opposed to Obama in Feb and a good opponent would wrap this…and hit tax hike vote…around his neck. However, it is undertermined if his opponents will have the resources to make it happen.
Simply, No. He’ll be beat over the head with it at every turn. It was a stupid thing to do, and the seed he sowed at the time will have grown in to a big rotten apple by primary season.
For what it is worth — if a Democrat had said kind words about Bush in 2004, and then run for just about anything in 2006 or 2008, would the Democrats nominate that person?
That’s not to step all the way back from my prior comments, but still, the people in the GOP do have a bit of a point on this one.
Linda, that just won’t happen here. It never really has before. More likely, they’ll stay on the D side and vote for whom they want rather than declare an R vote.
The Feb. 2 primary will see lots of action in the Democrat primary. The hardcore who take a Republican ballot will be conservative. They won’t like Dillard’s vote to increase sales taxes in Cook and the collar counties. Here’s how his conservative opponent will put it: “Kirk Dillard joined with Todd Stroger in raising the county sales tax.”
Dillard will have difficulty winning the primary, not because of the right so much as the party regulars who can never forgive him for appearing in an ad for Barack Obama. The tax haters will never vote for him either, although I think he could be a good governor.
Dillard won’t overcome the commercial to win the primary, which is too bad because the far right will again hijack the primary only to see the Dems win in the fall.
Dillard will have to overcome the fact that he waited to long to run. in case he is unable to count, Democrats have become the majority party in Illinois. Although Dillard is a moderate, he’s still out of touch with the majority of Illinois Democrat voters.
I would never in a million years carry the literature, vote, endorse or otherwise promote a candidate who did a commercial for this President. For any of you who blame this on the “far right” or say he is a “moderate” you are wrong. He is someone who wont stand up for what he believes in but rather was hoping to gain political capitol from helping a Presidential candidate from his very blue state. It was cold and calculated. He should not hold ANY higher office.
The General election will be tough for Dillard. There’s a faction who won’t forgive and there’s another that will be lost once they’re reminded. Of those who will support him because they see this as a strength, he could lose 25-50% or more depending on what Obama’s up to at the time.
To his advantage, though, people are a little disappointed with the GOP overall, but I’ll bet few of them will bother coming out for the Primary.
He’s obviously stronger in the General, but he’s going to have to figure out how to get there.
“The Commercial” won’t be a factor in the elections, as long as the fundraisers cough up the cash for Dillard.
I’ve had the opportunity to meet and talk to Proft, Brady, and Dillard, and Dillard is by far the most trustworthy of that group.
Schillerstrom is a “tax and spend” guy, just like Birkett and Cronin, so I don’t see them getting anywhere with the anti-tax base. I understand that is about 60-75% of the voters from “unofficial” sources.
About the only people behind the tax increases are the press, government contractors, those ont he dole, and employees and their families. That’s only about 25% of the voters.
Proft’s baggage with that Cicero crowd is enough to disqualify him. We don’t need even a question of that “pay to play” culture in the Governor’s office.
Brady is as slippery as they come. For years I’ve been trying to get him to explain under what circumstances he’d raise taxes, and I’m convinced he really doesn’t have any taxpayer protection core of values.
Many of us still remember how he played the spoiler for Judy Baar Topinka two years ago, dooming any GOP chances since virtually every one of her policy positions were contrary to the GOP platform and base. His staying in the primary was all about his future political ambition, not about promoting the pro-life, low tax, smaller, faqirer government, anti-corruption policies that GOP and independent voters support.
In Dillard’s case, he made a mistake with the commercial, but I can understand it.
Obama, at that time, was a long shot to beat Hillary. Obama was sure to win Illinois in the primary,and I suspect that Dillard saw it as an opportunity to gain some political capital with Obama supporters, including Senate President Emil Jones.
Since there was “no way” Obama could win given the competition and his lack of a record of programmatic accomplishment and leadership, it seemed like a safe bet.
The simple fact is that the people of Illinois will support him if he can show that he has the answers to the corruption, irresponsible spending, unsustainably generous pension program, exodus of the “producers” form Illinois, and anti-business policy problems our state faces.
If he can show leadership there, no one will care about the commercial except for some intransigent right wing wackos.
At least that’s what I’ve been hearing at my “vast right wing conspiracy” meetings!
Confused…for starters, your numbers may be a little more friendly than reality. 36 to 33 or 37 to 31 between Judy and Oby…doesn’t really matter. What does matter is that you seem to assume EVERY voter for Brady would have taken Oby as second choice. Furthermore, what about all of the votes for Gidwitz and Martin? You are assuming too much.
As for the question, the Illinois GOP will do their best to destroy Dillard with the ad. If he’s in, I don’t think it would cost him the primary. However, the infighting in the GOP will cause this ad to be used, the primary will become incredibly heated and expensive, and the Dems will likely say “thank you” as they stroll to victories in the general.
wonderboy’s right. I don’t think everyone’s suddenly going to start playing nicely during this Primary.
Granted, if it gets more explosive than usual, it might bring more people out to vote, but if not, we’re talking primarily Conservatives as usual.
I don’t believe the commercial should be a factor. I understood it then, and have no problems with it now. But I believe it’s still going to make things tough during the Primary.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Jun 11, 09 @ 11:33 am:
No.
The hard-core Obama, um, “detractors” will turn out just to beat him. That’ll be enough in a primary.
It was an odd thing to do.
- In one word; - Thursday, Jun 11, 09 @ 11:43 am:
Nope
- Inquisitor - Thursday, Jun 11, 09 @ 11:45 am:
Perhaps the question should be: can Dillard’s opponents overcome his credentials?
- Ghost - Thursday, Jun 11, 09 @ 11:47 am:
I tend to side with word, but I am going to go out on a limb and suggest a different answer.
I would say he does nto need to “overcome” the ad to prevail. The IL gop has been suffering for the lack of a moderate canidate. Dillard can actually point to the ad to play up his ability to work across the aisle and strenghten his credentials as a moderate. This in tunr will help him draw in more mod GOP members and perhaps draw a few independents into the primary to support somone who supported the now President. Dillard could also imply his support for Obama would help him in Washington in obtaining benefits for IL, even though he is a memebr of the GOP.
- Legaleagle - Thursday, Jun 11, 09 @ 11:47 am:
Yes. Only an idiot would hold his bipartisan, kind,and true words about a colleague against him. That colleague is now the POTUS. Sen. Dillard’s whole life will be judged by that one item? Come to think of it, there are a lot of idiots in the Republican Primary. That’s why they keep losing.
- The Doc - Thursday, Jun 11, 09 @ 11:49 am:
No way. McKenna, Proft, et al will continually beat him over the head with this single item.
Ah, the good old days of 2008, where bipartisanship seemed virtuous.
- memsab - Thursday, Jun 11, 09 @ 11:49 am:
If he don’t lose 70lbs it won’t matter the “trail” will take care of outcome!!
- Secret Square - Thursday, Jun 11, 09 @ 11:51 am:
It will probably depend on how popular, or unpopular, Obama is when primary time rolls around.
If the economy seems to be stabilizing or turning around and Obama’s approval remains high, it will help or at least not hurt. If the economy continues to slide or some huge foreign crisis or scandal erupts that calls Obama’s ability to govern into question and tanks his approval ratings, then, it will hurt him.
- Skeeter - Thursday, Jun 11, 09 @ 11:54 am:
No. While he would be a very strong candidate against whoever ends up as the Democratic nominee, he will never get out of the primary.
This is amazingly typical of the ILGOP. Despite the poor performance of the gov and the legis. post-Blago, the ILGOP will still find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Instead of a moderate who can win, they will go with somebody from the far right who is sure to lose.
- ILPundit - Thursday, Jun 11, 09 @ 11:54 am:
I think it will be difficult to overcome, not impossible.
That said, if he somehow wins the GOP nomination, that ad does more to re-brand him as a “different” type of Republican than just about anything else I can imagine. He would be very formidable in a General Election.
- GA Watcher - Thursday, Jun 11, 09 @ 12:02 pm:
No, he can’t. The conservative element of the IL GOP won’t stand for it. It’s a shame, too, because Senator Dillard would be a good candidate.
- Boscobud - Thursday, Jun 11, 09 @ 12:02 pm:
Yes, Because chances are the people of illinois didn’t see this ad.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Jun 11, 09 @ 12:04 pm:
Boscobud, your logic is way off. The ad doesn’t exist in a vacuum. His comments can be used in a new ad.
- Louis G. Atsaves - Thursday, Jun 11, 09 @ 12:06 pm:
He can overcome it through the “reaching across the aisle” argument, which also applies to segments of the GOP in Illinois. The “I can work with everyone to break up the crippling log jam in Springfield” message will resonate even with the majority of GOP voters, but not with the hard core vocal minority. It won’t be easy for him, as a group is out there that will never forgive him.
- OneMan - Thursday, Jun 11, 09 @ 12:11 pm:
It is going to be very hard, he will get nailed with it during the primary. I would go as far as to say imposible.
Activist Republicans (think committeemen and the like) generally did not respond well to it (to say the least) and are/will hold it against him. Trust me folks besides the right wing of the party were upset about it.
Isn’t the only factor against him but it’s a big one…
- Red Ranger - Thursday, Jun 11, 09 @ 12:14 pm:
It will be tough, but I think so. Republicans and Dems alike flock towards candidates that look like winners (see Barack Obama). People will overlook certain flaws and disagreements to join someone that looks like a winner. Dilliard has the look of a winner. Good pedigree, can unite the country club and the social conservative republicans and a record to run on. The true nuts of the party will beat him up over it, but they have two outlets to split their votes (Brady and Proft). In a 4 or 5 person race, enough will be drawn to Dillards ability to look like a winner.
- scoot - Thursday, Jun 11, 09 @ 12:21 pm:
Yes he can overcome it to win the primary. It shows bi-partisanship something that rarely exists these days, and shows a friendship between the two while in the state senate.
Also, it’s not like this commercial had a big impact on Iowa or the Prez campaign folks.
DILLARD ENDORSED AND SUPPORTED MCCAIN.
The 2010 election should focus on the corrupt Dems not a silly commercial. By the way, outta everyone else exploring a bid Dillard has the best chance in November.
- Leroy - Thursday, Jun 11, 09 @ 12:26 pm:
Is a statewide GOP primary in Illinois really this extremely partisan?
I sure hope not.
- Jechislo - Thursday, Jun 11, 09 @ 12:26 pm:
No, no, a thousand times no. “Ghost” said ‘The IL gop has been suffering for the lack of a moderate canidate.’ (sic) Good God, what do you call Topinka? Moderate Republicans are sheep liberals in RINO clothing. They may be able to get elected in their District but can’t get elected in the General election. The Republican Party needs a conservative candidate, not another ‘moderate’. Can a conservative get elected; I don’t know, but I know a moderate can’t. Judy proved that. Liberals love touting Republican moderates because they know it divides the Republican Party.
Go Brady.
- Justice - Thursday, Jun 11, 09 @ 12:26 pm:
He can certainly try and use it to his advantage but the Illinois GOP primary has proven to be the graveyard of some good political hopefuls in the past few elections. Those with possibilities are torn up by those seeking power. In my opinion this Republican primary will be no different in that the best and brightest will be destroyed by the vicious attacks of desperate opponents. An “If I can’t win, I’ll see that you don’t either” attitude. Lack of unity, lack of a common cause or goal, and chaos in the overall structure. I can still remember when there was a well organized and disciplined GOP in Illinois. Now we seem to be fighting our way to the bottom.
- shore - Thursday, Jun 11, 09 @ 12:28 pm:
No. 38 percent of republicans told the washington post polling group this morning they are frustrated with their leadership. part of the reason we are frustrated with our “leaders” is because of things like this.
Dillard endorsed the most liberal democrat to be elected to the white house in our generation, he let obama, an Illinois democrat holding a u.s. senate seat that could have been used to stop legislation like card check and big spending bills, use his name to gain credentials as a bi-partisan guy.
Dillard is a RINO, like LaHood and I have no interest in supporting a guy like that for anything ever.
As well he was cited in the u of i clout scandal this morning in the tribune as one of the state legislators who traded influence. That does not inspire confidence in me that he will do anything to change springfield.
- WOW - Thursday, Jun 11, 09 @ 12:30 pm:
As a Dem. I think Dillard should be the biggest worry out there. He did work for Thompson and Edgar because he was another pretty face. He is very sharp. That being said the GOP in a primary tend to eat there young (and old and everyone else). But with enough wacko’s in the primary then anything is possible. Sorry, to the question, yes I think it hurts him in a primary because it will be a focus for those with no issues. But most of them already wouldn’t vote for Dillard anyway.
- Will - Thursday, Jun 11, 09 @ 12:31 pm:
NO. The ad is one more example of Dillard trying to pander to all sides.
If you listen to him and follow his career, he tries to always have it both ways- I’m a moderate/ we need conservative values; Obama’s great/ I love McCain; Blago is terrible/ I voted for Blago’s pension bond deal; no new taxes/ voted to raise RTA sales tax.
He’s a Springfield politician. That is not what we need to lead IL out of this disaster. It’s certainly not what the GOP needs to win.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Jun 11, 09 @ 12:32 pm:
===one of the state legislators who traded influence===
He didn’t “trade” anything. He used his influence on behalf of his constituents who asked. Unless there were campaign contributions that match up with the timing, what you wrote is just not true.
- Segatari - Thursday, Jun 11, 09 @ 12:41 pm:
Absolutely not, not even if the country-clubber act-like-Democrats wing of the party turns out in force. It’s been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that nominating people that act like Democrats is a doomed to failure strategy.
- Pat Collins - Thursday, Jun 11, 09 @ 12:43 pm:
Sure it’s an issue. One Q to ask is “what does it say about his judgment”?
I’d ask him “what sort of bi-partisanship are we seeing now”?
It seems like, as so often, the benefits were a one-way street. Obama got a lot of cover, Dillard got what?
It is very legitimate to ask “what sort of judgment did you use, and will you also be taken to the cleaners as Governor”?
But the above comment is also pertinent, a lot of how “toxic” that ad is will depend on how the President is perceived come next fall.
- N'ville - Thursday, Jun 11, 09 @ 12:45 pm:
What’s “moderate” about Dillard? If you read that letter to his colleagues, he sounds like a conservative Republican…even calls himself one. Is he “moderate” because he’s “bipartisan”?
- shore - Thursday, Jun 11, 09 @ 12:47 pm:
Full disclosure we haven’t seen the email chains to know the conversations that lead to those kids getting into the u of i, so you can’t say for sure as to whether or not dillard did it out of the goodness of his heart. As well with higher education being cut from budgets lately, you wonder if a state lobbyist isn’t going to see the writing on the wall and wonder if denying anything to a state rep won’t cost them funding. On twitter I have been asking the tribune staff to provide numbers but not names of the applicants that were clouted in by legislators so that we can see whether these kids were egregious examples of clout.
In any case dillards involvement with u of i clout takes away his argument as a change agent.
- YNM - Thursday, Jun 11, 09 @ 12:52 pm:
I’m having a hard time believing those who are saying he won’t be able to overcome it because the conservatives won’t stand for it, or because McKenna, Proft, et al will beat him over the head with it. Those positions assume that the conservatives in this state carry any significant influence, even in a primary and/or that McKenna, Proft, et al have any significant influence over the GOP as a whole.
You all do remember that JBT won the primary in 2006 over her much more “conservative” counterparts, right?
And let’s not forget there were a lot of Republicans who voted for Obama.
So, to the original question, Yes. I do think he can overcome the ad. The moderate camp in this state will tire easily if McKenna, Proft, et al try to beat him over the head with it continually or if the conservatives try to run another Oberweis-like candidate.
- Catonian - Thursday, Jun 11, 09 @ 12:53 pm:
No, he won’t make it through the primary. Dillard and that TV commercial will go hand-in-hand with GOP voters. Either they will remember on their own or his opponents will make sure they remember.
As a Republican committeeman in the suburbs I won’t carry his literature when I walk my precinct.
He knew what he was doing when he did that commercial.
- Ravenswood Right Winger - Thursday, Jun 11, 09 @ 12:55 pm:
Yes, he can overcome it if Brady/Proft/whoever split the conservative vote.
- Bill - Thursday, Jun 11, 09 @ 12:57 pm:
I hope not. Dillard is probably their best hope to win the general and he would probably be an excellent governor. I’m hoping that enough crackpots turn out in the primary to elect one of the same goofball extremists that the Illinois GOP is famous for.
If he does win the primary the ad will be a big plus for him because Illinoisians love their President.
- Pat Collins - Thursday, Jun 11, 09 @ 12:57 pm:
McKenna, Proft
Kind of an odd combination.
I read Dillard’s letter, while he addresses the issue, I dont think he addressed very well. He needs to do a better job than in his letter.
I might distribute his literature, might not.
- GOP10 - Thursday, Jun 11, 09 @ 1:02 pm:
No way. And it’s not just the ad but his strange explanation of it. He praises Obama and defends the ad and then claim 100 percent loyalty to McCain, all with a straight face. It’s classic Springfield doubletalk and shows why a 16-year State Sen might not be the best choice for those looking for a change.
- Steve - Thursday, Jun 11, 09 @ 1:04 pm:
Rich, thanks for reminding everyone of this ad. This should hurt him. Maybe he can have Jim Edgar do commercials for him.
- Sporty41 - Thursday, Jun 11, 09 @ 1:10 pm:
While my initial reaction was No; I guess my response would be who will challenge him? None of the previous also rans will be able to compete.
To the extent a worthy candidate emerges, his support of Obama only hurts him among the base because Obama has turned out to be just a shade left of Chairman Mao and Comrade Marx. Had Obama stayed in the middle, as he advertised during his election, then Dillard would be able to survive and get to the general.
All the details about what he supported and what he said won’t mean anything without the funding to get the message out. Right now, none of his known challengers have the money or the message to get it done.
Unfortunately, I think the debate is somewhat any exercise in futility unless the GOP can get their act together . . . Oh where have you gone Joe DiMaggio!
- Confused - Thursday, Jun 11, 09 @ 1:19 pm:
YNM
Oby and Brady together came out to be 51% JBT got 36% oby got 33%. As for Dillard his pro life bona fides are gone because of his Obama endorsement GONE! He worked for Thompson and Edgar how is that Change? The party has been fighting for 10 years to rid us of the Thompson Edgar combine; now you think the base just goes back? He sided with Daley to raise taxes for the CTA. But the backing of the Commie and Chief will be his downfall. Born Alive infant protection act.
There is another candidate who can get both sides together without the baggage of the combine. Gidwitz
- Third Generation Chicago Native - Thursday, Jun 11, 09 @ 1:20 pm:
Dillard can use this to his advantage that he will be the one who can work with both Democrats and Republicans. What’s there to overcome, an ad showing you can play well with others no matter what their political party is?
- shore - Thursday, Jun 11, 09 @ 1:34 pm:
I don’t think democrats get it. Every time LaHood or Dillard shows up with one of these big wet ones for Obama, I feel like I just got kicked in the holyland. It’s a sign of the disconnect between the party elite and the party grassroots.
Dillards experience does not impress me. The GOP has gone from in power to out of power during his reign, and his u of i clout ties sicken me.
- Obamarama - Thursday, Jun 11, 09 @ 1:34 pm:
No.
Proft is sure to be all over him on this issue–a lose-lose situation for Dillard. If Dillard doesn’t respond, Proft’s going negative is successful in scaring away the base. If he responds to Proft, it looks like two minnows sparring in a shark tank(ok maybe a dolphin tank in the case of the ILGOP).
- HoosierDaddy - Thursday, Jun 11, 09 @ 1:44 pm:
Keep in mind that when you refer to “the state” you refer to an entity that extends considerably south of I-80. A great deal of the GOP base is in Southern Illinois. When that ad hits the airwaves here, Dillard is toast… Unless there are multiple conservative candidates and the central/southern vote gets split up again like ‘06.
- Downstate GOP Faithless - Thursday, Jun 11, 09 @ 1:45 pm:
i just dont get why everything thinks dillard is this great moderate…hes really conservative and seemingly very little seperates him from any other candidates in the race…pro-life, pro-gun elected official-thats exciting…
- Belle - Thursday, Jun 11, 09 @ 1:49 pm:
No. Nyet. Never. Nien.
- The Doc - Thursday, Jun 11, 09 @ 1:51 pm:
===You all do remember that JBT won the primary in 2006 over her much more “conservative” counterparts, right?===
Yep. And then she lost in the general by a full 9 points, while up against an incumbent under known heavy scrutiny by the feds - which is kind of my point.
- VanillaMan - Thursday, Jun 11, 09 @ 1:52 pm:
If you believe Republicans are closed-minded boobs, then your answer to this question reflects your closed-minded attitude towards the GOP, and you’ll claim that Dillard couldn’t possibly win in the GOP primary.
Of course he could. After Thompson in 1976, 1978, 1982, 1986, Edgar in 1990 and 1994, Ryan in 1998, Ryan in 2002 and Topinka in 2006, the GOP has proven repeatedly over the past thirty years that someone like Dillard to also be nominated.
Case closed.
- 47th Ward - Thursday, Jun 11, 09 @ 1:52 pm:
Only if the ILGOP decides that winning statewide is important. I don’t see that happening anytime soon. Anybody read the comments about this on IL Review? Nasty is a kind description of the vitriol there.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Thursday, Jun 11, 09 @ 1:53 pm:
This ad won’t even be an issue in a Republican primary.
Republican primary voters will be voting based on:
- Taxes
- Guns
- Abortion
- Democratic corruption
Obama hasn’t raised taxes, taken away guns, increased abortions or been tainted by corruption, so you can’t really use him to connect on Dillard with any of those issues.
Not to mention the fact that you can bet a record number of suburban independents will be voting in the GOP primary, and they LOVE Obama and bipartisanship and HATE old-school politics.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Jun 11, 09 @ 1:55 pm:
Insane comments at IR are not relevant to any discussion here. Please, leave them out of this. Thanks.
- just sayin - Thursday, Jun 11, 09 @ 1:59 pm:
Sure, he can overcome that in a primary. With an IL GOP so decimated, anything can happen, especially when the rest of the field is so weak.
And forget about Proft. The Cicero sleaze is worse than ever. (Didn’t anyone see the latest on the sexual harrassment claims? The town’s new spokesperson is also from Dan’s firm Urquhart Media. They are out there now bullying and trying to intimidate female sexual harrassment victims. That should play well with voters.)
And whoever said Andy McKenna would be working against Dillard, don’t be so sure. My guess is Dillard could very well end up being McKenna’s candidate and the candidate of the GOP’s finance committee (and yes, Dillard can overcome that association too).
Bill Brady is done too. The McKenna crowd used up that stooge. He’s of no value to them anymore. Even McKenna knows Brady doesn’t have what it takes, and that’s pretty scary.
But this is all whistling past the graveyard in any case. The IL GOP has done zip to repair itself. If Lisa Madigan gets in, it’s over. Even Quinn would win easily given the IL GOP’s ineptitude.
- Secret Square - Thursday, Jun 11, 09 @ 2:05 pm:
YDD, I would add one word to your assertion that Obama hasn’t “raised taxes, taken away guns, increased abortions or been tainted by corruption” That word is “YET”.
A lot could happen in the next 6-8 months — maybe not in the sense of an actual statistical increase in taxes, abortions or gun restrictions, but in moves that could lead to such in the future(e.g. the Freedom of Choice Act). And scandal is always unpredictable.
So, I stand by my prediction that how this ad affects Dillard’s chances to win the primary hinges on how Republican voters are feeling about Obama when primary time rolls around. And that could still change very significantly.
- Silent Reindeer - Thursday, Jun 11, 09 @ 2:05 pm:
I am not sure it really hurts him. First of all, he is just talking about Obama’s bi-partisan credentials, which is funny in itself, but that’s another discussion. You know there were a lot of Republicans who voted for Obama. It might actually help him if Obama remains popular, because then Dillard looks like the guy who is willing to put the partisan rhetoric aside and extend the olive branch. I just think that the Democrats have proved over the last six or seven years they can’t get it done.
- Yes He Can - Thursday, Jun 11, 09 @ 2:07 pm:
Senator Dillard is an etremely intelligent man and a great fundraiser and would be an outstanding Governor, who has shown his ability to be bi-partisan
- GOPer - Thursday, Jun 11, 09 @ 2:17 pm:
Like him personally, but not sure he is trusted by members of his own caucus. Appearing in the Obama ad will be interpreted at best that he goes for the short term headline without considering the long term effect. While all Republican primary voters will know that he appeared supportive in an Obama ad,(a BIG negative) most will have a difficult time remembering something unique and positive about him that cant be said about someone else in the race or that seperates him positively from the pack. Hard to see him besting Brady anywhere South of 80 and hard to see him coming out of Dupage with a large vote as he will be splitting things with Schillerstrom and others. While a very ambitious and bright guy, it will be an extremely tough race for him to even place or show. Got to consider him a long shot for the winner’s circle.
- John Doe - Thursday, Jun 11, 09 @ 2:38 pm:
I am afraid that political ad by Mr. Dillard will always come back to haunt him. I consider myself to be a Republican somewhere in the middle between moderate and conservative. I would balk at supporting Dillard because of his poorly thought out decision to make that ad for his friend Barack Obama. It shows me that he lacks the ability to use good judgement. Who is “the real” Mr. Dillard? Because I don’t know, I won’t be able to comfortably vote for him.
It will eventually come down to a battle between Bill Brady (a moderate Conservative) and Dan Proft (an unabashed Conservative). Proft won’t apologize for being a conservative. Brady will apologize if that is what it takes to get moderate Democrat and Independent votes. Both are good men. But I think GOP conservatives are going to throw their support only behind a guy who refuses to pander to the numerous and varied special interest groups. I don’t want a guy who “babbles in tongues” when confronted by the media as to his political views. I want a governor of substance and not one who is all fluff. I want a guy who simply states what his beliefs are and refuses to run away from them. I want a guy who goes against his Party leadership when he knows that they are in the wrong. Someone who yells at the top of his lungs when he sees unethical behaviour, no matter who it is. At least, I will know who and what I am dealing with this way. I don’t want a “shape-shifter”. We already have too many of them in Springfield and Washington. Mr. Gidwitz found out before that lots of money doesn’t get you the necessary votes that will be required. “Passion” is what is required to get people’s votes.
- You've Got to Be Kiddin Me - Thursday, Jun 11, 09 @ 2:51 pm:
Proft???, be serious, he’s not even close to a winnable candidate…of course we have nothing to worry about if he runs his campaign like he’s try to run others….he will lose, just like all the campaigns he has run for state-wide…plus didn’t he work for Lee Daniels and Tristano….
- Bikin - Thursday, Jun 11, 09 @ 2:55 pm:
No way, The GOP base will not support a guy who endorsed Obama… and stood by his decision to do so.
Also, hes talking about bringing new ideas to the state….how long has he been a senator??
- You've Got to Be Kiddin Me - Thursday, Jun 11, 09 @ 3:08 pm:
Talk about someone not electable…Proft way tooooo far to the right, he might be electable in Utah…LOL!
- View from the Cheap Seats - Thursday, Jun 11, 09 @ 3:15 pm:
Bottom line - there is an extraordinary vacuum in the Governor’s race. And, not one of these people can fill it.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Jun 11, 09 @ 3:15 pm:
Stick to the question, please.
- Segatari - Thursday, Jun 11, 09 @ 3:19 pm:
The only reason JBT got the nomination is the conservative votes were divided between three conservative candidates. And the IL GOP leadership threw a massive hissy fit because the conservatives dared to explain why JBT was the wrong choice.
- View from the Cheap Seats - Thursday, Jun 11, 09 @ 3:31 pm:
Back to the question - No. The GOP will be very strongly opposed to Obama in Feb and a good opponent would wrap this…and hit tax hike vote…around his neck. However, it is undertermined if his opponents will have the resources to make it happen.
- heet101 - Thursday, Jun 11, 09 @ 3:34 pm:
Simply, No. He’ll be beat over the head with it at every turn. It was a stupid thing to do, and the seed he sowed at the time will have grown in to a big rotten apple by primary season.
- heet101 - Thursday, Jun 11, 09 @ 3:38 pm:
Segatari - Rod Blagojevich was a MUCH better choice, you’re right.
- Skeeter - Thursday, Jun 11, 09 @ 3:39 pm:
For what it is worth — if a Democrat had said kind words about Bush in 2004, and then run for just about anything in 2006 or 2008, would the Democrats nominate that person?
That’s not to step all the way back from my prior comments, but still, the people in the GOP do have a bit of a point on this one.
- Segatari - Thursday, Jun 11, 09 @ 3:48 pm:
heet101 - Aren’t we talking about the primaries and not the general? Pay attention please.
- Linda - Thursday, Jun 11, 09 @ 3:51 pm:
Another theory: Enough Dems, fed up with the Dem dynasties, indictments and stalemate, pull a GOP primary ballot and take Dillard over the top.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Jun 11, 09 @ 3:53 pm:
Linda, that just won’t happen here. It never really has before. More likely, they’ll stay on the D side and vote for whom they want rather than declare an R vote.
- Reformer - Thursday, Jun 11, 09 @ 4:31 pm:
The Feb. 2 primary will see lots of action in the Democrat primary. The hardcore who take a Republican ballot will be conservative. They won’t like Dillard’s vote to increase sales taxes in Cook and the collar counties. Here’s how his conservative opponent will put it: “Kirk Dillard joined with Todd Stroger in raising the county sales tax.”
- Fed-up - Thursday, Jun 11, 09 @ 5:11 pm:
KD is smart, ambitious and clean. Don’t sell him short.
- Quiet One - Thursday, Jun 11, 09 @ 7:51 pm:
Dillard will have difficulty winning the primary, not because of the right so much as the party regulars who can never forgive him for appearing in an ad for Barack Obama. The tax haters will never vote for him either, although I think he could be a good governor.
- William - Thursday, Jun 11, 09 @ 8:50 pm:
Dillard won’t overcome the commercial to win the primary, which is too bad because the far right will again hijack the primary only to see the Dems win in the fall.
- WaxonWaxoff - Thursday, Jun 11, 09 @ 11:58 pm:
Dillard will have to overcome the fact that he waited to long to run. in case he is unable to count, Democrats have become the majority party in Illinois. Although Dillard is a moderate, he’s still out of touch with the majority of Illinois Democrat voters.
- Oswego Joe - Friday, Jun 12, 09 @ 12:02 am:
I would never in a million years carry the literature, vote, endorse or otherwise promote a candidate who did a commercial for this President. For any of you who blame this on the “far right” or say he is a “moderate” you are wrong. He is someone who wont stand up for what he believes in but rather was hoping to gain political capitol from helping a Presidential candidate from his very blue state. It was cold and calculated. He should not hold ANY higher office.
- Anonymous - Friday, Jun 12, 09 @ 1:01 am:
The General election will be tough for Dillard. There’s a faction who won’t forgive and there’s another that will be lost once they’re reminded. Of those who will support him because they see this as a strength, he could lose 25-50% or more depending on what Obama’s up to at the time.
To his advantage, though, people are a little disappointed with the GOP overall, but I’ll bet few of them will bother coming out for the Primary.
He’s obviously stronger in the General, but he’s going to have to figure out how to get there.
- Anonymous - Friday, Jun 12, 09 @ 1:02 am:
Sorry. Meant to say “The PRIMARY election will be tough….”
- steve schnorf - Friday, Jun 12, 09 @ 1:25 am:
Leroy, are you kidding???
Pingback Will Dillard’s Obama Ad Come Back To Haunt Him? : - Friday, Jun 12, 09 @ 7:34 am:
[…] - posted by Rich Miller 76 Comments […]
- PalosParkBob - Friday, Jun 12, 09 @ 8:38 am:
“The Commercial” won’t be a factor in the elections, as long as the fundraisers cough up the cash for Dillard.
I’ve had the opportunity to meet and talk to Proft, Brady, and Dillard, and Dillard is by far the most trustworthy of that group.
Schillerstrom is a “tax and spend” guy, just like Birkett and Cronin, so I don’t see them getting anywhere with the anti-tax base. I understand that is about 60-75% of the voters from “unofficial” sources.
About the only people behind the tax increases are the press, government contractors, those ont he dole, and employees and their families. That’s only about 25% of the voters.
Proft’s baggage with that Cicero crowd is enough to disqualify him. We don’t need even a question of that “pay to play” culture in the Governor’s office.
Brady is as slippery as they come. For years I’ve been trying to get him to explain under what circumstances he’d raise taxes, and I’m convinced he really doesn’t have any taxpayer protection core of values.
Many of us still remember how he played the spoiler for Judy Baar Topinka two years ago, dooming any GOP chances since virtually every one of her policy positions were contrary to the GOP platform and base. His staying in the primary was all about his future political ambition, not about promoting the pro-life, low tax, smaller, faqirer government, anti-corruption policies that GOP and independent voters support.
In Dillard’s case, he made a mistake with the commercial, but I can understand it.
Obama, at that time, was a long shot to beat Hillary. Obama was sure to win Illinois in the primary,and I suspect that Dillard saw it as an opportunity to gain some political capital with Obama supporters, including Senate President Emil Jones.
Since there was “no way” Obama could win given the competition and his lack of a record of programmatic accomplishment and leadership, it seemed like a safe bet.
The simple fact is that the people of Illinois will support him if he can show that he has the answers to the corruption, irresponsible spending, unsustainably generous pension program, exodus of the “producers” form Illinois, and anti-business policy problems our state faces.
If he can show leadership there, no one will care about the commercial except for some intransigent right wing wackos.
At least that’s what I’ve been hearing at my “vast right wing conspiracy” meetings!
- YNM - Friday, Jun 12, 09 @ 10:47 am:
Doc, I believe the question was about the GOP Primary, not the General.
The “south of I-80″ conservative base of the GOP cried foul about Topinka’s conservative credentials too. Yet, she still won in the *GOP Primary*.
- the wonderboy - Friday, Jun 12, 09 @ 1:17 pm:
Confused…for starters, your numbers may be a little more friendly than reality. 36 to 33 or 37 to 31 between Judy and Oby…doesn’t really matter. What does matter is that you seem to assume EVERY voter for Brady would have taken Oby as second choice. Furthermore, what about all of the votes for Gidwitz and Martin? You are assuming too much.
As for the question, the Illinois GOP will do their best to destroy Dillard with the ad. If he’s in, I don’t think it would cost him the primary. However, the infighting in the GOP will cause this ad to be used, the primary will become incredibly heated and expensive, and the Dems will likely say “thank you” as they stroll to victories in the general.
- Anonymous - Saturday, Jun 13, 09 @ 2:37 pm:
wonderboy’s right. I don’t think everyone’s suddenly going to start playing nicely during this Primary.
Granted, if it gets more explosive than usual, it might bring more people out to vote, but if not, we’re talking primarily Conservatives as usual.
I don’t believe the commercial should be a factor. I understood it then, and have no problems with it now. But I believe it’s still going to make things tough during the Primary.