Post-Mortem: CSI Illinois

Posted on Comments

Dan Riehl says he doesn’t want to engage in hindsight recriminations over the Illinois gubernatorial campaign. As I explained at The American Spectator in the wee hours this morning, the evident narrow victory for state Sen. Bill Brady appears to be a less-bad outcome for conservatives, however disappointing it may be for Adam Andrzejewski’s Tea Party supporters.

In addressing what he sees as a failure of the conservative blogosphere, Riehl writes:

Brady never did make it on our radar.

OK, so whose fault was that? I didn’t see any online activism from the Brady campaign. Maybe Brady’s operatives figured they could win without New Media coverage — and, at this point, who can argue with that calculation? — but if they wanted to generate such coverage, they didn’t make any discernible effort.

Meanwhile, Andrzejewski had Tea Party activists who were employing social networking tools to spread their message. And near the end of the campaign (a bit too late, probably) they engaged the services of a very strong New Media team. An extra week’s advance notice of the Lech Walesa Tea Party appearance in Chicago would have been priceless. But rather than try explaining Andrzejewski, let’s let Brady explain his own victory:

“It’s clean break from the politics of the past,” Brady said. “We’re going to go on to victory in November.” . . .
“Our strategy was simple,” said Brady, the only downstate candidate. “We were running against five, six Chicago guys. We needed to solidify our base. But we did that 11 months ago by deciding we had to build the strongest grassroots effort this state has ever seen.”

Second-guessing campaign strategies is a fascinating sport. However, if there is any New Media takeaway from the Illinois gubernatorial primary, it is this: Campaigns would be wise to engage the blogosphere early in the election cycle, rather than to treat online outreach as an afterthought. (My friend JSF at Valley of the Shadow has been trying to explain this to the California GOP.)

You’ll excuse me for not writing a complete thesis on this subject, but I’m in a hurry today. Tomorrow evening, I’m expected at dinner in Birmingham, Ala., and it’s a 14-hour drive.

The Same Reason I Didn’t Attend Obama’s State of the Union Speech

Posted on Comments

“I don’t go because it has become so partisan, and it’s very uncomfortable for a judge to sit there. And there’s a lot you don’t hear on T.V. — the catcalls, the whooping and hollering, under-the-breath comments. . . . So we decided not to go. Some members continued to go and that’s fine, but one of the consequences is that now the court becomes part of the conversation, if you want to call it that, in the speech.”
— Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas

What’s the Matter with Kansas Massachusetts?

Posted on Comments

From the BBC, of all places:

The Republicans’ shock victory in the election for the US Senate seat in Massachusetts meant the Democrats lost their supermajority in the Senate. This makes it even harder for the Obama administration to get healthcare reform passed in the US.
Political scientist Dr David Runciman gives his view on why there is often such deep opposition to reforms that appear to be of obvious benefit to voters. . . .

Dr. Runciman, of course, gets around to citing Thomas “What’s the Matter with Kansas” Frank, but not before he gets to this misleading statistic:

In Texas, where barely two-thirds of the population have full health insurance and over a fifth of all children have no cover at all, opposition to the legislation is currently running at 87%.

Dr. Runciman is a political scientist and not an economist, and thus does not connect this fact with another fact, namely that Texas has a stronger economy than states dominated by liberalism. Furthermore, many of those uninsured in Texas are illegal immigrants and their children who (a) would be covered under ObamaCare, but (b) are ineligible to vote.

It evidently does not occur to Dr. Runciman that people — even very poor people — might have moral objections to redistributionist policies, which ObamaCare most certainly would be. Dr. Runciman (and others like him) can’t conceive that people take pride in earning their own wages and paying their own bills, and thus resent the smug insinuation that they can’t get by without government giveaways.

Rather than consulting the professoriate, perhaps the BBC should have asked me to explain this, as I did at the time of the TARP bailout:

Some years ago, I was asked to speak to a Christian homeschooling conference — my wife and I have homeschooled our six children — and during the question-and-answer session after the speech, I faced a question for which I was unprepared.
“How has your Christian faith influenced your political beliefs?”
This stunned me into silence for a second. Then I answered: “Well, I guess it comes down to that part about ‘Thou shalt not steal.'”
From there I proceeded to discuss the basic immorality of the welfare state, how it is wrong for government to take money that one man has worked for and give it to someone who hasn’t earned it.
Whereas transactions in a market economy are voluntary and peaceful, the actions of government are essentially coercive, backed with the threat of violence to those who disobey. What government does, it does “at the point of the bayonet,” so to speak. Therefore, the fearsome power of government ought to be constrained to limited and specific purposes — defending the life, liberty and property of citizens.
When government begins to meddle in the economy, picking winners and losers, using appropriations and fiscal policy to transfer money from one group of citizens to another, it divides society into two classes, taxpayers and tax consumers, punishing the former in order to reward the latter.
Such a policy is not merely misguided, it is immoral — indeed, it is sinful, as I told the Christian homeschoolers — and by displaying the spectacle of government engaging daily in legalized theft, the welfare state tends to corrupt the morals of its citizens.

Academics love to offer us nuanced theories of politics that flatter their own presumptions of superior wisdom. Yet the truth may be far simpler than the “experts” believe. What part of “Thou shalt not steal” is so hard to understand?

Alabama: ‘Things Going On’

Posted on Comments

I’m planning to leave late tonight or early Thursday for a shoe-leather reporting trip to Alabama. That rattling sound you hear is either the transmission of the 2004 KIA Optima or me shaking the tip-jar like Carmen Miranda’s maracas in a Cuban samba frenzy.

This trip continues the Grassroots-vs.-Establishment theme I’ve been covering for the past few months. There are several GOP primary campaigns in Alabama that have a Tea Party angle:

So that’s a full menu for a planned four-day trip. But while doing research for the Alabama trip I noticed another very interesting story:

Alabama’s two Republican U.S. senators are backing Luther Strange in his campaign for Alabama attorney general, a reversal from their past support for the incumbent, Troy King.
U.S. Sens. Richard Shelby and Jeff Sessions are featured guests at a Washington fundraiser for Strange next week, according to the invitation, and both offices on Tuesday praised Strange’s candidacy.

Two GOP senators turning against a Republican official in their own state? What could possibly explain that? Dan Riehl says, “It does seem a little weird.” A quick Google on Troy King turns up the fact that he was John McCain’s Alabama state campaign chairman in 2008 and . . . well, do your own Googling. It’s more than a little weird.

This adds that extra fear-and-loathing factor for my ‘Bama trip. We’ll see how much reporting I can cram into a four-day road-trip, since it’s at least a 14-hour drive there and 14 hours back again. Figure seven cups of coffee to get me down there (7 x $2 = $14) and another $14 to get back home, plus $50 for a carton of smokes. Oh, and $11 for a crowbar to pry my sweaty hands off the steering wheel when I’m done.

Once again, we borrow our post title from the esteemed poet Ronnie Van Zant:

If you don’t know what I mean,
Won’t you stand up and scream?
‘Cause there’s things goin’ on that you don’t know.

Illinois Update: Brady Leads in GOP Gov. Race; Kirk Wins Senate Primary

Posted on Comments

LIVE RESULTS

Wednesday, Feb. 3, 12:15 a.m. ET: As disappointing as the Illinois GOP gubernatorial primary is for Andrzejewski’s Tea Party supporters, Mark Kirk’s win in the Senate GOP primary is much worse from a conservative perspective. Michelle Malkin notes the “hold-your-nose” factor as reflected in the ultra-low primary turnout.

11:55 p.m. ET: Bill Brady leads Kirk Dillard by fewer than 2,000 votes with 97% of precincts reporting. Jim Hoft’s updated headline — ANDRZEJEWSKI SURGING . . . Maybe not — captures the sense of widespread disappointment among supporters of the Tea Party insurgent, who is about 40,000 votes behind the leaders.

Over the weekend, some of Andrzejewski’s staffers were second-guessing their tactics, but there’s really nothing to be gained by rear-view mirror recriminations. The entrenched strength of the GOP Establishment is such that any “outsider” candidate fights against near-insurmountable odds.

Like Doug Hoffman in last year’s NY23 campaign, Andrzejewski started with near-zero name recognition. The Chicago-area media did its best to ignore Andrzejewski campaign and a late surge of New Media attention was, alas, too late to overcome that disadvantage. As with Hoffman, the lessons learned from this campaign, and the network of contacts built in the process, can be employed going forward.

With RINO Mark Kirk the winner of the GOP Senate primary, and Obama-endorsing Dillard going down to the wire in the gubernatorial primary, conservatives in Illinois are understandably glum. Expect to hear rumblings of third-party campaigns in the next few days. Expect that talk to fade when the third-party advocates discover the high hurdles to ballot access in Illinois.

In the end, the challenge for Tea Party activists in Illinois — as elsewhere — is to focus their energies toward the long, slow process of getting inside the regular GOP machinery. Over the past couple of years, Ron Paul’s supporters have discovered that in many instances, it takes only a half-dozen or so dedicated activists to capture a county Republican committee. Tea Party people can learn the same lesson.

Sitting through the tedious proceedings of a county GOP meeting might not be exciting and revolutionary, but such is the mundane business of pursuing real political influence.

11:05 p.m.: With 92% of precincts reporting, it’s neck-and-neck between Kirk Dillard, Bill Brady and Andy McKenna. A source with the Andrzejewski campaign says Brady is a “good guy,” compared to either Dillard or McKenna.

Much ire among Andrzejewski’s supporters is directed toward Dan Proft, a marginal candidate who currently has about 45,000 votes and whom some suspect of being a stalking horse for McKenna’s GOP machine. Proft was profiled last year by Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass who notes Proft’s ties to Al Capone’s old haunts:

All this talk of reform is exciting, except for one thing. Proft has a problem. It’s the size of Cicero. That doesn’t necessarily disqualify him. But when a candidate is linked to Cicero, that candidate finds himself on the defensive.
For years Proft’s public relations firm has reaped hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees from governments in and around Cicero, not exactly the most reformish hamlet in the state.
My colleague at the Sun-Times, Carol Marin, has been merciless in dissecting Proft. She’s made Cicero a special study for years. If Proft thought that one day he’d run for governor, he should have stayed out of the town that Al Capone built.
“I’m not here to try and convince you that Cicero is Mayberry,” Proft said. “People can play that guilt-by-association game. I had a responsibility to a client, to represent their interests, just like an attorney would, just like any professional would. And that’s what I did.”

Add together the votes for Proft — who was endorsed Monday by Richard Baehr of American Thinker — and Andrzejewski, and you’d have a winning plurality. Just sayin’ . . .

10:25 p.m.: Bill Brady runs strong in rural counties:
Franklin . . . . . . 56%
Edwards . . . . . . 55%
Lee . . . . . . . . . 50%
Washington . . . . 49%
Livingston . . . . . 46%
Fulton . . . . . . . 40%

10:17 p.m. ET — With 73% of precincts reporting, less than six points separate first place (20.4%) and fifth place (14.8%).

10:10 p.m. ET — The polls in Illinois have been closed for more than two hours, and 67 percent of precincts are reporting. While Andrzejewski is currently in fifth place, his strong showing in Madison County (40% with 83% of precincts reporting) should be reflected in neighboring counties where precincts are surprisingly slow to report. Nevertheless, it looks like Brady’s strength in the southern tip of the state may turn this into a battle between Brady and McKenna, with Dillard, Ryan and Andrzejewski in a close race for third.

9:50 p.m ET. — Strange: Nearly two hours after the polls closed, zero precincts reporting in St. Clair County, a St. Louis suburb that should be strong for Andrzejewski, who has 40% of the vote in neighboring Madison County, which has already reported 70% of its precints.

9:40 p.m. ET — When watching these media reports of election results, it’s important to note that 46% of precincts reporting is not the same as 46% of the votes. The largest precincts may report late. That said, it appears from the county-by-county results that Brady and Andrzejewski split a lot of the down-state and rural vote, while McKenna — whose strength is in the Chicago suburbs — is emerging as the winner over Dillard.

9:20 p.m. ET — One of my Twitter friends: “Ain’t lookin good for the good guys, Stace.” Indeed, with 31% of precincts reporting, Andrzejewski is in fourth place with 15%, and Andy McKenna’s strong support in the Chicago suburbs has him in first place at 25%. The good news so far: Obama-endorsing Kirk Dillard is in still below 20%.

9:10 p.m. ET — Looking at the map of the results, you see that most of the counties have not yet reported a single precinct. Andrzejewski is indeed strongest in the St. Louis suburbs — Metro East, it’s called — which are a hotbed of Tea Party activism.

9 p.m. ET — Live counter of results. With 24% of precincts reporting, McKenna leads with 28%, Andrzejewski currently fourth with 16%.

8:24 p.m. ET (Smitty) — Andrzejewski campaign reports results in from Williamson County show their candidate topping Brady by 1 vote. “It’s gonna be close.” Expect further updates.

7:50 p.m. ET — Welcome, Instapundit readers! A source in Springfield reports that exit polls indicate a three-man race between Andrzejewski, Brady and Dillard, with McKenna fourth. Polls close in 10 minutes, so we’ll have actual vote totals soon. Stay tuned . . .

7:40 p.m. ET — Partial exit-poll reports indicate Andrzejewski “coming on strong,” says my source, with Dillard “dropping fast.” The campaign was still pushing GOTV at 6:30 p.m. CT, focusing on the Metro East suburbs of St. Louis downstate. “We can get another thousand votes out of there in the next half-hour.” Local conservative talk radio programs were reportedly inundated with call-ins from Andrzejewski suporters. “It’s crazy.” Expect more from Gateway Pundit tonight. Will continue to keep you updated here . . .

6:55 p.m. ET — “We’re on fire!” a campaign operative for Adam Andrzejewski told me in a phone conversation shortly after 5 p.m. CT (6 p.m. ET). “It’s freaking insane.”

The campaign staff was energized by Erich “Mancow” Mueller’s endorsement this morning. E-mail networks of Tea Party activists are overflowing with messages about the campaign’s all-out drive to get voters to the poll in the Illinois GOP gubernatorial primary. Some volunteers have used washable paint to festoon their vans with “Vote for Adam” slogans.

According to my source, their turnout operation is “looking good in downstate and East Metro,” which are Andrzejewski’s key areas. Polls close at 7 p.m. CT — a little more than an hour from now.

The candidate is reportedly awaiting results in Oak Park.

EXPECT FURTHER UPDATES . . .

PREVIOUSLY: