U.S. Senate

I've got a great idea - if we have a problem with risky lending and risky borrowing, we should enact laws which encourage more risky lending and risky borrowing.

If there is fraud, prosecute it.  But don't use a single penny of taxpayer money to bail out lenders or borrowers who knew (or should have known) they were engaging in a risky behavior and now expect all of us to bail them out of it.

This "solution" is worse than the problem it is supposed to address, and will only make that problem worse.

Bill and Hillary Clinton have finally released their income tax returns for the years 2000-06.  In these years, they list an income of almost $109,000,000.  (Do all the blue collar voters supporting HRC feel like chumps yet, or will they quit voting for her when they learn she's been slow to pay the health ins. premiums for her campaign staff?  Remember, helath care issues are very important to her!)

It made the front page of the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and the Chicago Tribune.  I quickly scanned the News-Gazette and the Chicago Sun-Times,  but didn't see mention of this in either paper. 

I'm left wondering how late Friday this was released, and do they honestly hope people will have forgetten about this by Monday? 

Did either John Edwards or Mitt Romney make this much in the same time frame?  The Clintons are among the 14,500 richest people in the U.S.

Peggy Noonan has the week off at the WSJ; I can't wait to see what she writes about this next Saturday.

Having a good ballot name can go a long way to winning an election.  This isn't just cynicism on my part.  It's been borne out in recent Illinois political history.  In our area a great example was the Democratic Primary for Congress in 1992 when party favorite Mark Weisbrot (now with a Washington think tank) lost to Charles Mattis.  While Weisbrot won handily in Champaign County and had more money and organization, he wasn't able to offset the votes received by Mattis throughout the rest of the district.  It was hard to find much of  a reason for the loss other than the unCentral Illinois sound to the Weisbrot name.

More famous, and with far more impact, was the 1986 Democratic primary for Lieutenant Governor.  George Sangmeister, a State Senator from Will County faced off against Lyndon LaRouche supporter Mark Fairchild.  There probably wasn't a single Democratic elected official in the state that didn't support Sangmeister, to the point that the party organization never really worked the election.  On election night, the wacko with the nice name, Mark Fairchild, beat Sangmeister.  Adlai Stevenson, faced with the choice of being on the ticket with Fairchild or running as a third party, decided on the latter.  It killed the Democrats that year as Jim Thompson crushed Stevenson.

After receiving yet another question today from a Republican about who to vote for in the race for U.S. Senator, I'm very concerned that we might end up with another Fairchild on our ticket.  Steve Sauerberg is the Republican establshment choice for U.S. Senate.   Andy Martin, aka Anthony Martin Trigona, is on the ballot as well, along with Mike Psak.  Martin/Trigona has a long history of bizarre behavior, running as a candidate for various offices with both the Democratic and Republican parties and suing everyone in sight.

Sauerberg is relatively unknown outside of party circles.  Are we setting ourselves up for the nice sounding Andy Martin to be our candidate against Dick Durbin?

Sen. Dick Durbin seems to have a problem with using government resources for campaign purposes.

Just when you thought U.S. Senator Dick Durbin had dispensed with the tempest about using his Senate logo for a campaign video, his staff dug an even deeper hole.

On the New York Times blog Caucus, Durbin spokesman Mike Daly admitted that a 5-minute welcome video to liberal bloggers at the YearlyKos convention last weekend in Chicago should not have had the Senate logo, because, by inference, it was campaign related. However, in the same NY Times blog post, it says that Durbin’s people concede the video was made in the Senate studios.

To be honest, most complaints of this type seem like simple oversights, rather than a coordinated effort to use government resources for political purposes.  But I will not the silence of some of our local progressive activists, who will love to trumpet such complaints against their political opponents - both Democrat and Republican - but are unaffected by a misstep by Sen. Barack Obama's campaign and this much more expensive and serious misuse by Durbin's office.

Again - these things are almost always a tempest in a teapot, but the self-righteous hypocrisy makes it worth noting.

I've been talking for a few months about the dismal failures of both parties in Congress to even attempt to live up to the promises on which they campaigned.  The GOP was rejected in 2006 largely because of this - they took the majority as the party of openness, small-government and competence, and squandered twelve years with pork, corruption, and massive expansions of the Federal bureaucracy.

Now, the Democrats are in power, and have been for almost six full months, yet they have only one meager accomplishment (a minimum wage hike) to show for it.  They failed to deliver on their promises to end the War in Iraq, disappointing much of their base.  And the Democrats, unable to learn from Republican stupidity, are already ignoring the promises they made just a few months ago about pork and earmark reform.  Toss in an immigration boondoggle that everyone in DC loves but everyone else in America hates, and it's a poisonous brew.

Now we're getting a series of stories discussing how disappointing the Democrats have been, and how disappointed they are, with lots of bad poll numbers and finger-pointing and angst from everyone in the process.  The numbers for the President are in the same ballpark, with much of the same reaction.  But buried way down at the bottom of this article echoing that theme is this gem from Illinois' own Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Peoria):

Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Ill.) said he believes that voters are just plain mad -- about high gasoline prices, the lack of border security and the Iraq war.

"I don't know if it would be different if we were in the majority," LaHood said. "We didn't deal with immigration reform, we've continued to go along with what the president wanted on the Iraq war, which is what the Democratic majority has had to do, and when we were in the majority we didn't bring down gasoline prices.

"I think the American public is mad at all of us," said LaHood, "Republicans and Democrats."

Gee, you think?  I can't remember a time when I felt that our political elites - both Democrats and Republicans - were so completely out-of-touch or completely willing to ignore the national mood.  Yet here we are.

At least Rep. LaHood is voicing it. Why isn't anyone else in DC realizing this, and acting on it?

I've often said, over the past few months, that the only thing that could stop Democrats from winning the White House in 2008 is the Democratic Party.  Well, they're working on it.

Six weeks ago the Democrats held a 24-point lead over Bush as the stronger leadership force in Washington; today that's collapsed to a dead heat. The Democrats' overall job approval rating likewise has dropped, from a 54 percent majority to 44 percent now -- with the decline occurring almost exclusively among strong opponents of the Iraq War.

Of course, the high profile "failure" of the Democratic Congress is on a withdrawal from Iraq.  But they're also falling into the same pork-and-corruption cesspool that Republicans did previously, but that the Democrats had explicitly promised to avoid.  Add the immigration debacle to that, and there's lot of reasons for the plummet. 

Why are our national leaders so unworthy of the challenges we face?

I'm starting to think that the only one thing standing between national Republicans and complete electoral disaster in 2008 is the Democrats.

Why is it, given that our national politics are clearly so challenging right now, that most of the leading figures of both political parties just seem so unworthy of the challenge?

From a press release I just got via email:

Steve Sauerberg M.D., a 54-year-old successful family practice physician based in La Grange, Illinois, has entered the Republican primary for the United States Senate seat, currently held by Democrat Dick Durbin.

“ A lifetime of serving others translates well to curing what is wrong with career politician Dick Durbin and his out-of-touch liberal values,” said Sauerberg. “We need to cut taxes to help families and create jobs, cut wasteful pork barrel spending, oppose efforts to reward illegal immigrants with citizenship and taxpayer benefits, and we must develop alternative energy sources including bio-fuels to ensure both energy independence and our national security, while also providing affordable top quality healthcare for all our citizens.” 

A loving husband, father of two, and life-long family care physician, Dr. Sauerberg has built one of the largest family medical practices in the western suburbs of Chicago. Steve is also a former medical school teacher, little league coach and was recently chosen to serve on the MacMurray College Board of Trustees, his alma mater. Steve graduated from MacMurray College, located in Jacksonville, Illinois, in 1975 and later graduated the Chicago-based Rush Medical College in 1977. He opened his own medical practice in 1985, which he still maintains today. 

Earlier this year, Illinois Senator Dick Durbin was rated the most liberal senator in the country by the National Journal, a respected non-partisan Washington publication.

“It’s troubling how non-partisan sources document that Durbin is the most liberal member of the United States Senate, a real liberal’s liberal. Dick Durbin does not represent our Illinois values,” added Sauerberg. “We need to bring real-life common sense to the national debate so we can find solutions and get results for the taxpayers, families, and seniors of Illinois. I believe I can be that voice and best serve the residents of Illinois here at home and in Washington, D.C.” 

An official campaign kick-off will be announced in the coming weeks.

At least he's from Illinois.

This story made me laugh a little:

Sen. Barack Obama vows to bring a "new kind of politics" to Washington. But a copy of a 36-page fax from Obama's Senate office, obtained by NEWSWEEK, shows that the rookie presidential candidate, riding the biggest wave this side of his native Hawaii, needs to keep a sharp eye on the details of his own campaign. Senate ethics rules allow senators with active campaigns to "split" the work time and salary of official schedulers such as Obama's Molly Buford. According to Obama's campaign spokesman, Robert Gibbs, she in fact is paid by both entities. But Senate rules and federal law forbid the use of official equipment—such as faxes and phone lines—to conduct campaign business, which was what Buford was doing last Thursday when she faxed Obama's political "call list" to the senator's personal aide at a Columbia, S.C., hotel. "These are the call sheets for tomorrow's call time," she wrote on the official cover page, emblazoned with the seal of the U.S. Senate.

One, this is a minor, minor thing - a classic example of another campaign playing "gotcha" with a stupid unforced error by a staffer - not even by the candidate.

Two, Sen. Obama has set himself (and allowed the media to elevate him to a level) "above politics."  This is why Speaker Madigan called him "The Messiah."  But for every silly, stupid, nothing-to-it little mistep like this one, the metamorphosis into Just Another Politician™ continues.

Three, some Champaign County Democrats have a history of calling for investigations of officials who use government faxes for political purposes.  Which of our principled local Democrats will stand against such a blatant abuse of official resources?  Just kidding, just kidding - but I will be waiting for someone to demand a special prosecutor.  ;-)

Some people are speculating, because of a favorable map, President Bush's unpopularity, the Iraq War and general national Republican stupidity, that the Democrats may reach a filibuster-proof 60-seats in the United States Senate.

It's unlikely, and it would almost certainly take until 2010, but here's their initial forecast for 2008:

Many Republican strategists thought their party had hit rock bottom on Election Day 2006, but the political reality is that things have gotten measurably worse since then.

The raw numbers also point to a strong Democratic year in 2008. Democrats have just 12 seats to defend as compared to 21 for Republicans -- by far the best ratio of the three Senate classes. (The 2010 class has 17 Democrats and 15 Republicans; the 2012 class has 19 Democrats and 15 Republicans.)

But, it is not just the raw numbers. There are five obvious pickup opportunities for Democrats even at this early stage of the cycle: the open seat in Colorado as well as seats currently held by Republican Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), Norm Coleman (Minn.), Gordon Smith (Ore.), and John Sununu (N.H.).

In Colorado, Republicans haven't yet settled on a candidate and Democrats have made considerable gains at the state and federal level in the past few elections. Collins, Coleman, Smith and Sununu all represent states carried by Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass) in the 2004 presidential race, and, given the tough political environment, may struggle to convince voters to re-elect them.

To avoid this, it would help if national Republicans will wise up.  But I'm not betting on that.

Yesterday, the State Senate voted to confirm three new members of the Board of Trustees, and because Senate President Emil Jones refused to allow Senators to question the nominees, it was largely a party-line vote:

The Illinois Senate approved new six-year terms for three University of Illinois Board of Trustees members Tuesday despite complaints that senators were denied a chance to quiz them about the controversial retirement of Chief Illiniwek.

Also Tuesday, the House voted almost unanimously to have U of I board members elected publicly, rather than appointed by the governor...

Montgomery and Eppley, an attorney from Palatine, were approved on a largely party-line vote of 34-19, with two voting "present." Vickrey, a media group vice president from Peru, was approved by a 39-13 vote, with three voting "present."

Many Republicans said they voted "no" to protest Sen. Rickey Hendon's decision to prevent the trustees from testifying before a Senate committee hearing on Friday.

The four GOP members of the Senate Executive Appointments committee requested that Eppley, Montgomery and Vickrey appear at Friday's hearing. But Hendon, a Chicago Democrat who chairs the committee, said he rejected the request because the senators wanted only to grill the trustees about the Chief.

Sadly, the State Senator who represents the University of Illinois - Mike Frerichs - voted "present."  When faced with a choice between standing for public access to the Trustees of the University or standing with Emil Jones, Frerichs couldn't choose.  He abdicated, and demonstrated no leadership whatsoever. 

There were legitimate reasons to vote for the nominees, if Frerichs felt they were the best choices. 

There were legitimate reasons to vote against the nominees, if Frerichs was turned off by Jones' refusal to allow testimoney and questions.

But there is absolutely no reason for the Senator representing the University and its many employees and students to abstain.  It's just a complete abdication of his leadership responsibilities, and I'm disgusted.

The New York Times has run a story which links Barack Obama's investments to legislation that he sponsored that had the potential to increase the value of those investments.  It's a fairly damning article for a guy who has claimed to be above the rest of politicians in this regard.  The article also points to the  Tony Rezko scandal that Obama has been linked to.   Reading the article it is clear that Obama's has been very successful in figuring out how to parlay his electoral success into money making contacts.  The difference between her and Hillary Clinton is shrinking by the day.

Also of interest is that Obama refuses to answer the questions directly. 

And for those who think that this is just a coincidence here are some interesting facts.  AVI BioPharm has  a current market cap of about 130m.  Skyterra has a current market cap of about 578m.  I believe the current market cap of the New York Stock Exchange is well over $10 trillion.  Add in OTC, Nasdaq, etc and you can see how implausible it is that these stocks were picked out of thousands by the broker without Obama's influence.  And his sponsorship of the legislation that assists them is equally implausible.

I apologize for the spammy feel of this as my first blog entry at IlliniPundit, but we at The Minority Report decided that a splash was in order.

Give TMR a look, click "About" and "Who", and join up if you want.

Especially, take note of Barack Who?

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

The Minority Report Blog Launched

Los Angeles, February 1, 2007 - Bloggers today unveiled The Minority Report Blog (theminorityreportblog.com). The site will bring a decidedly different perspective on political news and events as seen by numerous seasoned blog contributors.

The Minority Report Blog views are generally aligned with Republican policies and conservative political perspectives. However, the site provides an opportunity for serious comments from users across the political spectrum. It will also provide links to political news headlines and other related sites of interest.

"We saw the relegation of Republican party to minority status as an opportunity' said The Minority Report Blog founder Steven Foley, "An opportunity to provide commentary from a different perspective with the aim of regaining the majority and holding it".

The blog and more information can be found at: theminorityreportblog.com

Contact:
Steven Foley or Administration @
The Minority Report Blog

Administration@theminorityreportblog.com

Barack Obama is running for President, even announcing the date at which he'll make his formal announcement:

His announcement today was the filing of a presidential exploratory committee, a step that allows him to immediately start to raise money in advance of a more formal announcement of his candidacy, which Obama said would come next month.

...

Although aides as recently as this weekend were still calling it a "possible" campaign, one close friend to Obama said the only thing that would stop the candidacy would be if the senator "got cold feet."

He's in.  Here's the video:

I think he'll win the nomination, although Hillary Clinton will bloody him quite a bit.  What do you think will be the net effect on Illinois politics if he's the Democratic nominee in 2008?  My not-so-difficult guess is massive (and overwhelmingly Democratic) turnout in Chicago and the suburbs, and Dick Durbin assured of re-election.

But can Obama win the Presidency?  My analysis is that the Democratic Party is the clear favorite to win the Presidency in 2008, and I think Obama will win the nomination - so yes, I think he can win the Presidency.

You guys want more national politics here, so you've got it!

Senator Allen (R-VA) conceded to Jim Webb today, giving Dems the 51-49 Senate majority.

Dick Durbin will likely now be the Majority whip.

What do you see happening in congress in the next two years, and how do you think it will affect Illinois?

Andrew Mason (link added) blogged about it.

Mike Richards, candidate for county clerk started us off and during his speech Dr. David Gill arrived. Richards called the current administration of the county clerk's office a “partisan cudgel” and basically accused it of election tampering by hammering away on the difficulties University students face when trying vote. He went on to say that Frerichs “would win if there was an even playing field.” Once again with more implications that Republicans are committing election fraud. I'm not sure how many people actually heard him say that since Richards' remarks were frequently drowned out by the sounds of passing skateboards.

Heh. And the picture is hilarious - I'm sure Sen. Durbin was just laughing at her t-shirt, but it's still hilarious.

(Hat tip: Kiyoshi)

From Roll Call (subscription needed) via an RNC email:

The 12th anniversary of the Republicans' 1994 “Contract with America” came and went on Wednesday without a 2006 Democratic counterpart. And there won't be one.

Instead, Democratic House and Senate leaders held yet another press conference to denounce the Republican Congress' “rubberstamping the Bush administration's misguided agenda.”

Despite repeated urging from various quarters, including from former President Bill Clinton, that the party needs to make clear what it stands for and not just against, Democrats contend that off-year elections are referenda on the party in power and that a Democratic alternative agenda would only provide targets for the GOP to attack.

What exactly do national Democrats stand for?

Oh, here's the vaguest beginnings of something.  An example:

ENERGY INDEPENDENCE - LOWER GAS PRICES
Free America  from dependence  on foreign oil and create a cleaner environment with initiatives for energy-efficient technologies and domestic alternatives such as biofuels.  End tax giveaways to Big Oil companies and enact tough laws to stop price gouging.

It's already working!

UPDATE:  Here's another poll - the CNN/USA Today/Gallup - with President Bush's approval rating climbing to 44%, and with the generic Congressional ballot evenly divided.

Since this post generated so much discussion, I thought I'd revisit it from time to time. I'll briefly quote myself to set the table as to what I thought of the national political landscape:

A lock? I had thought that the number of competetive House districts was small enough (numbering in the 30s, if I remember correctly) that the Democrats would have to sweep nearly all of them win the majority.

In the intervening three weeks, I've been bookmarking articles to renew the discussion. This post is going to be long, so click on "Read more..." for the rest.

This seems to be a little like counting one's chickens before they're hatched:

Democratic insiders, who months ago thought their chances of winning a majority in the House were no better than even, and that the Senate was a lost cause, have become far more optimistic. Now, they say, winning the House is a lock, and the Senate is within reach.

A lock? I had thought that the number of competetive House districts was small enough (numbering in the 30s, if I remember correctly) that the Democrats would have to sweep nearly all of them win the majority.

Stuart Rotherberg on Friday changed his forecast to a likely Democrat takeover in the House:

To hold the House, Republicans must retain at least a handful of districts that now appear likely to go Democratic, probably by discrediting Democratic challengers and open seat hopefuls. Unlike previous cycles, when the burden was on Democrats to create upsets, the onus is now on the GOP to save at least a handful of seats before Election Day.

Therefore, we are raising our estimate of likely Democratic gains from 8-12 seats to 15-20 seats, which would translate to between 218 and 223 seats ”“ and a majority ”“ in the next House.

And, in the Senate:

Still, even if all three Toss-Up states went to the Democrats, the GOP would remain in nominal control of the Senate. In the case of a 50-50 tie, Vice-President Dick Cheney would cast the deciding vote as the presiding officer of the Senate.

At the moment, it's difficult to find a sixth takeover opportunity that would give Democrats control of the Senate. However, two Senate seats are close enough that we consider them only "Leaning Republican" at this time--Virginia and the Tennessee seat of retiring Senator Bill Frist.

I don't pay enough attention to Federal elections, but the CW is certainly forecasting bad things for the Republicans. (My gut tells me that if bad things do happen, it's because Congressional Republicans have turned into the party of Big Government, with the accompanying scandals that government largesse seems to foster.)

What's your prediction/analysis?

While I poked a little at Barack Obama yesterday, in fairness I should point out that he's on the right side of at least one pet issue of the left. In Junction, Illinois yesterday (Yes, I'm impressed on that one. There's not much there other than, well, a junction.) Obama came out against the impeachment of George Bush. So while we have a referendum on the ballot in the Townships of the City of Champaign and Cunningham to call for the impeachment of George Bush, we can say with certainty that at least one Democrat is against it.