http://thecapitolfaxblog.com/2007/12/19/the-illinois-huckaboom/ (50 comments posted as of 12:53 AM, Thursday, December 20, 2007)

(THE ARTICLE: A friend of mine and I were talking last night about Mike Huckabee’s surge in Illinois. The Tribune poll showed him essentially tied with Rudy Giuliani here, but the former Arkansas governor has no real presence here. No staff, no advertising, no media coverage. Nothing. The only explanation we could come up with is that some voters are paying very close attention to the Iowa contest and are basing their decisions on that. Imagine. Meanwhile, some very far right fringe candidates have so far been running Mike Huckabee’s campaign in Illinois, such as it is. . . .[Jonathan Wright] was an assistant prosecutor in the Logan County state’s attorney’s office when he was appointed to fill an unexpired term in the Illinois House in 2001. During his short stint in the House, he backed legislation that would have allowed student-led prayer in public schools. Wright did not seek re-election in 2002 but re-emerged on the political scene during the 2004 election when he made a long-shot bid for the U.S. Senate, running to the right of just about everybody on the ballot. . .Also on board the Huckabee bandwagon is David McAloon of Bourbannais, who is running for a seat in the Illinois House against incumbent state Rep. Careen Gordon, D-Morris. McAloon is listed as chairman of the Slot/Values in Religion to Unite Everyone political action committee, which has funneled money to social conservative candidates over the years. McAloon lost the GOP primary in that district last year. Wright’s Senate bid was pretty pathetic. Joe Wiegand, who ran Jim Oberweis’ 2006 gubernatorial primary campaign, told me today via e-mail that Huckabee is “days away from announcing Illinois Co-chairs.” We’ll see if they move up to a more A-List crowd, but almost all of those people are already on board with other candidates.)

(THE POSTING: League of Women Voters: Candidates vying to replace Dennis Hastert in Congress as representative of the 14th Congressional District will be featured in a League of Women Voters candidates' forum at 7 p.m. Jan. 8 in St. Charles. The public is invited to attend the forum. Both Democratic and Republican candidates who are running in the Feb. 5 general primary will participate in the event. The forum will be held at the Norris Cultural Arts Center, 1040 Dunham Road, St. Charles. The forum is sponsored by the League of Women Voters of Geneva-St. Charles and the League of Women Voters of Batavia in cooperation with the Daily Herald, Beacon News, and Kane County Chronicle. Within a moderated format, a panel of reporters will direct questions to the candidates, followed by questions from the audience. Immediately after the forum, the audience will be invited to an informal "Meet and Greet the Candidates" session.)

(THE ARTICLE: EAST PEORIA - Showing a continued commitment to win the state, Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani agreed to be the keynote speaker at the Tazewell County Lincoln Day Dinner on Feb. 2, just three days before Illinois' primary election. Tazewell County Republican Party Chairwoman Demetra DeMonte, a Giuliani delegate, said she received the confirmation on Tuesday. As the news started to spread, the event, being held in the ballroom at the Embassy Suites hotel and convention center, sold an additional 100 tickets on Tuesday alone for a total thus far of 630 guests. "We are known for wonderful, big events, and I let it be known that if he would come I would do my very best to get a huge crowd," DeMonte said. "He's spent a lot of time in Chicago, so that's why we really pushed to have him come down here. Central Illinois is the place to be." This will be the former New York mayor's first trip to central Illinois since announcing his candidacy, though he has spent time campaigning in the state. He was in the Chicago area within the past two weeks. "The attention (Republican presidential candidates) are showing to Illinois is indicative that they realize that Illinois is going to play a pivotal role in deciding who the next Republican presidential nominee is," said state GOP spokesman Lance Trover. A Giuliani spokesman could not be reached for comment. DeMonte said she's been pressing for Giuliani's appearance for six months. "These things don't just happen," she said. The East Peoria venue can hold up to 1,200 guests. DeMonte said the Tazewell Lincoln Day Dinner typically garners about 450 guests. "We've sold out the event the past four years. So this year, with construction of new Embassy Suites, we have lots more room," DeMonte said. Tazewell County Board Chairman Jim Unsicker said he was "taken aback" when he heard the news. "It's a national candidate, of course I'm excited. It boosts the party locally, and it certainly will boost our Lincoln Day Dinner," he said. Giuliani is one of nine GOP presidential hopefuls. Social hour begins at 5:30 p.m. with dinner starting at roughly 7 p.m. Tickets are $55 each or $550 for a table of 10. "It's probably going to be your least expensive presidential ticket you're going to get," DeMonte said. Anyone interested in attending can send a check payable to Tazewell County Republicans, 1000 Court St., Pekin, IL 61554.)

 

 

 

(THE ARTICLE: Conservative pundit Ann Coulter says GOP presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee is the “Republican Jimmy Carter” and nominating him would be a big mistake for the party. Appearing with John Gibson and Heather Nauert on Fox News’ “The Big Story,” Coulter was asked about Huckabee’s recent surge in the polls. “I’m getting tired of this being blamed on the evangelicals,” said Coulter. Huckabee’s rise is actually “bad for the evangelicals,” she asserted. “Mike Huckabee is the Republican Jimmy Carter.”  Nominating the ordained Baptist minister “would be a big mistake,” Coulter opined. “He has many good qualities. Unfortunately, the things that are upsetting to the mainstream media about Huckabee are what normal Americans like.” She cited as examples Huckabee’s “religiosity and his questioning of Darwinian evolution.” But she criticized the former Arkansas governor for opposing a bill that would have required Arkansas residents to prove they are Americans before they could vote or get social services. Coulter — whose latest book is “If Democrats Had Any Brains, They’d Be Republicans” — was also asked about Hillary Clinton’s recent decline in the polls. “Hillary really is in trouble, which would be fantastic,” she replied. “But I won’t believe it until we see the dead body.” When Gibson asked if she meant that literally, Coulter declined to answer. But she did go on to declare, regarding the Clintons: “I would love to see this national pestilence finished off once and for all. The primary would be great. If not, I’ll take the general election.”)

 

(THE ARTICLE: In 1999, Barack Obama was faced with a difficult vote in the Illinois legislature — to support a bill that would let some juveniles be tried as adults, a position that risked drawing fire from African-Americans, or to oppose it, possibly undermining his image as a tough-on-crime moderate. In the end, Mr. Obama chose neither to vote for nor against the bill. He voted “present,” effectively sidestepping the issue, an option he invoked nearly 130 times as a state senator. Sometimes the “present’ votes were in line with instructions from Democratic leaders or because he objected to provisions in bills that he might otherwise support. At other times, Mr. Obama voted present on questions that had overwhelming bipartisan support. In at least a few cases, the issue was politically sensitive. The record has become an issue on the presidential campaign trail, as Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, his chief rival for the Democratic nomination, has seized on the present votes he cast on a series of anti-abortion bills to portray Mr. Obama as a “talker” rather than a “doer.” Although a present vote is not unusual in Illinois, Mr. Obama’s use of it is being raised as he tries to distinguish himself as a leader who will take on the tough issues, even if it means telling people the “hard truths” they do not want to hear. Mr. Obama’s aides and some allies dispute the characterization that a present vote is tantamount to ducking an issue. They said Mr. Obama cast 4,000 votes in the Illinois Senate and used the present vote to protest bills that he believed had been drafted unconstitutionally or as part of a broader legislative strategy. “No politically motivated attacks in the 11th hour of a closely contested campaign can erase a record of leadership and courage,” said Bill Burton, Mr. Obama’s spokesman. An examination of Illinois records shows at least 36 times when Mr. Obama was either the only state senator to vote present or was part of a group of six or fewer to vote that way. In more than 50 votes, he seemed to be acting in concert with other Democrats as part of a strategy. For a juvenile-justice bill, lobbyists and fellow lawmakers say, a political calculus could have been behind Mr. Obama’s present vote. On other measures like the anti-abortion bills, which Republicans proposed, Mr. Obama voted present to help more vulnerable Democrats under pressure to cast “no” votes. In other cases, Mr. Obama’s present votes stood out among widespread support as he tried to use them to register legal and other objections to parts of the bills. In Illinois, political experts say voting present is a relatively common way for lawmakers to express disapproval of a measure. It can at times help avoid running the risks of voting no, they add. “If you are worried about your next election, the present vote gives you political cover,” said Kent D. Redfield, a professor of political studies at the University of Illinois at Springfield. “This is an option that does not exist in every state and reflects Illinois political culture.” The vote on the juvenile-justice bill appears to be a case when Mr. Obama, who represented a racially mixed district on the South Side of Chicago, faced pressure. It also occurred about six months before he announced an ultimately unsuccessful campaign against a popular black congressman, Bobby L. Rush. State Senator Christine Radogno, a Republican, was a co-sponsor of the bill to let children as young as 15 be prosecuted as adults if charged with committing a crime with a firearm on or near school grounds. The measure passed both houses overwhelmingly. In explaining his present vote on the floor of the Senate, Mr. Obama said there was no proof that increasing penalties for young offenders reduced crime, though he acknowledged that the bill had fairly unanimous support. “Voting present was a way to satisfy those two competing interests,” Ms. Radogno said in a telephone interview. Thom Mannard, director of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence, said political calculation could have figured in that vote. “If he voted a flat-out no,” Mr. Mannard said, “somebody down the road could say Obama took this vote and was soft on crime.” Mr. Obama’s aides said he was more concerned about whether the bill would be effective rather than with its political consequences. They did not explain why he did not just vote no. Lawmakers and other Illinois officials said the present vote was devised to enable lawmakers to recuse themselves from voting on bills that present personal conflicts. It can also be used in the routine day-to-day wrangling in the legislature. In at least 45 instances, Mr. Obama voted with large numbers of fellow Democrats as part of the tactical skirmishing with Republicans over the budget. Seven other times, he voted that way as part of a broad strategy devised by abortion rights advocates to counter anti-abortion bills. Pam Sutherland, president of Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, said Mr. Obama was one of the senators with a strong stand for abortion rights whom the organization approached about using the strategy. Ms. Sutherland said the Republicans were trying to force Democrats from conservative districts to register politically controversial no votes. Ms. Sutherland said Mr. Obama had initially resisted the strategy because he wanted to vote against the anti-abortion measures. “He said, ‘I’m opposed to this,’” she recalled. But the organization argued that a present vote would be difficult for Republicans to use in campaign literature against Democrats from moderate and conservative districts who favored abortion rights. Lisa Madigan, the Illinois attorney general who was in the Illinois Senate with Mr. Obama from 1998 through 2002, said she and Mr. Obama voted present on the anti-abortion bills. “It’s just plain wrong to imply that voting present reflected a lack of leadership,” Ms. Madigan said. “In fact, it was the exact opposite.” In other present votes, Mr. Obama, who also taught law at the University of Chicago while in the State Senate, said he had concerns about the constitutionality or effectiveness of some provisions. Among those, Mr. Obama did not vote yes or no on a bill that would allow certain victims of sexual crimes to petition judges to seal court records relating to their cases. He also voted present on a bill to impose stricter standards for evidence a judge is permitted to consider in imposing a criminal sentence. On the sex crime bill, Mr. Obama cast the lone present vote in a 58-to-0 vote. Mr. Obama’s campaign said he believed that the bill violated the First Amendment. The bill passed 112-0-0 in the House and 58-0-1 in the Senate. In 2000, Mr. Obama was one of two senators who voted present on a bill on whether facts not presented to a jury could later be the basis for increasing an offender’s sentence beyond the ordinary maximum. State Representative Jim Durkin, a Republican who was a co-sponsor of the bill, said it was intended to bring state law in line with a United States Supreme Court decision that nullified a practice of introducing new evidence to a judge in the sentencing phase of the trial, after a jury conviction on other charges. The bill sailed through both chambers. Out of 174 votes cast in the House and Senate, two were against and two were present, including Mr. Obama’s. “I don’t understand why you would oppose it,” Mr. Durkin said. “But I am more confused by a present vote.” Mr. Obama’s campaign said he voted present to register his dissatisfaction with how the bill was put together. He believed, the campaign said, that the bill was rushed to the floor and that lawmakers were deprived of time to consider it. Mr. Obama was also the sole present vote on a bill that easily passed the Senate that would require teaching respect for others in schools. He also voted present on a measure to prohibit sex-related shops from opening near schools or places of worship. It passed the Senate. In both of those cases, his campaign said, he was trying to avoid mandates on local authorities.)