Adam or Andy

It's primary election time here in the Land of Lincoln. Hard not to notice by the number of increasingly annoying ads being aired. With the latest SCOTUS ruling, that will get even worse this fall.

So now the question comes up, who do I vote for in the primary for Governor? Well, it won't be a Democrat. That party has totally screwed up this state, and I'd be inclined to vote for the Communist candidate in the general election over any of the state's Democratic contenders.

Then when I started looking at the GOP candidates I noticed there are really only two who aren't political insiders who've been hanging around Springfield so long they forget there is anywhere else in the state.

So my choice has come down to Adam Andrzejewski or Andy McKenna. Both are business people, not career politicians, which is a point for each. The fact my middle name is Andrew has nothing to do with those two being the finalists for my vote.

Both have decent plans for curbing state spending, auditing where our money currently goes, and trying not to raise taxes to fix our budget mess.

Both want more accountability from Springfield, more transparency on where our money is going. Andrzejewski wins that fight with his "Every Dime Online, In Real Time" pledge, though I wonder if that will be feasible in a reasonable amount of time.

McKenna's idea to start with the recent Auditor General report for consolidation of programs, and using that report to weed out the unknown programs; those that the head of the agencies couldn't identify; sound like a faster way to getting some of the budget mess solved than a forensic audit. Though that audit is probably necessary, it won't do much to take care of the $10 billion deficit we are currently facing.

Another plus for both is that neither seems to be fixated on Chicago first, then the rest of the state, a major problem with the other party. Yes, Chicago is the first city of the state, but the fact is letting the Rockford's and Peoria of Illinois rot while the legislature debates Chicago issues isn't the way to get the whole state moving.

Taxes are going to be a tough issue. All of the Democrats claim that the only solution to our budget woes is a tax increase. All the Republicans claim it can be fixed without them. I'm not sure that is true, but I think that it should be the last resort. Pat Quinn's idea of a 50% increase is crazy, if the budget is that badly messed up they need to figure out a way to get closer to their means, as opposed to raising taxes that high.

Property taxes are something else that has to be addressed. Unfortunately, while all the candidates claim they will do something about them, the real solution to those problems is going to be local. Excessive numbers of local taxing bodies makes it almost impossible to navigate a tax bill, or figure out how to reduce it. Local government consolidation is probably the most logical choice, starting with schools, park districts and the elimination of townships as taxing bodies.

One thing they could do in Springfield that would help both at the state and local levels would be to change the formula for how State guaranteed pensions are calculated. No where other than government can you sell back all your accrued vacation and sick days and have that counted as salary for determining a pension. Most companies can't afford to allow those days to be carried over more than a year or two because of tax implications.

Secondly, change the retirement ages for teachers and public employees (except firefighters and cops) to 65. If they want to retire after 30 years at 55 and collect a pension, fashion it like Social Security, and pay 60% at that age, 80% at age 60, and 100% of the eligible amount at 65.

Sorry for drifting, back to who will I vote for? Probably Andy McKenna, as of today. I think of the two his life experience has better prepared him to be the Governor, I also think Matt Murphy as Lt. Governor is a good choice. He has enough experience in Springfield to be helpful, but no so much that he's forgotten the real world.

Adam, I think is still a bit too young, and as the guy in DC is proving, novices aren't the best choices in tough times. However, if he does lose the primary I hope he stays involved in Illinois politics and keeps shining the light of openness on Springfield.

Read The Full Post!

It's Going to Go Nuclear

Looks like today's primary results won't result in Hillary Clinton leaving the race. While she's only winning Indiana by 5-6%, she "only" lost North Carolina by about 14%, or 10% better than she'd been polling there a few weeks ago.

I think the party leaders will be screaming before next weeks primary in West Virginia for Clinton to drop out. They've been asking kind of nicely up until now; but she'll probably win that in a landslide, and Kentucky on the 20th; and they don't want her to reload the "I'm more electable" cannon and start shooting it off. Considering she's moved up in most polls by 5-10 points in Oregon, and could make that a close race, the leaders want her out.

The more I think about it, the more I think that there is going to be a nuclear war in the Democratic Party, with Clinton lobbing the missiles. And, while I dislike both of them, she's got not only a right to do it, but a point.

The "Electability Arguement", whether Obama supporters like it or not, is a valid one. And, again whether they like it or not, he hasn't done well in any large state that Democrats "have" to win to take the White House except Illinois, which isn't a surprise. When it comes to swing states, he's hasn't done particularly well and doesn't poll well against McCain.

Expect to start hearing from Hillary's folks about electability, and the popular vote, with Florida and Michigan counted, since with those votes she's ahead in the popular vote. In fact, expect her to fully channel Al Gore's 2000 mantra of "every vote must count" on a regular basis for the next week or so, fighting to get the delegates from those states seated.

One other bomb waiting to be dropped on Obama before June is the Tony Rezko verdict. That case rested yesterday, with closing arguements next week and then to the jury. If there is a conviction, expect Clinton's folks to quietly remind Superdelegates that the "GOP Attack Machine"® will have commericals up faster than you can say Swift Boat to remind folks that Obama is a good friend of Mr. Rezko.

I'd like to say I feel sorry for the Democrats for having this long drawn out primary, but I don't. As I've said before, they've brought this on themselves by insisting that everything be "fair" and now it's biting them in the ass.

Read The Full Post!

Why The Frustration?

Yesterday I read a lot of blog and newspaper entries on the Democratic debate from last week. The biggest sense from all of them was frustration. While on the surface it seemed to be aimed at the questions and questioners, below the surface it is more likely aimed at the process that brought about this debate.

One of the more common lines was that McCain wasn't going to face such a debate between now and the convention. There wouldn't be a Gibson to ask him about his famous temper, since he doesn't have to do any more debating.

But that's not because he was the only candidate. Hell, six months ago John McCain was consider a DOA candidate. But the GOP primary system allowed him to sew up the nomination early, and concentrate on the broad picture. The Democrats, on the other hand, have developed a "fair" primary system, that has tied their party in knots. Today won't help, Hillary will win the primary in another big, "must win" state, and still not be the leader in delegates. More doubt may creep in about Obama's electability.

The Democrats came up with a system that worked great in basically from 1972 to 2004. The party generally got behind one person quick enough to have a "presumptive nominee" fairly early, and they could do the big picture campaigning in spring and summer. But none of those years had two really good candidates in the party view. This time around the flaw of their convoluted system is showing. Because the system does everything proportionally (read fairly) and the candidates are evenly matched, the campaigning against each other can't stop until Denver. In Denver it could be an ugly, 1968 style floor fight. Talks of a brokered convention with an outsider as the nominee are still floating around out there.

Now, out of fairness, every state left wants a debate, because the other one's had one. The problem is, that the policy stuff has been rehashed 21 times already on a stage. So the questions start getting to character, associations, etc. Those questions are uncomfortable to the candidates, and by reading the opinions on the web, more so to their supporters. People probably need to know more about candidates slips of memory, friends like Hsu and Rezko, and Wright and Ayers. The problem is the folks who've already committed to a horse in the race don't want to hear about that horses problems anymore. They want to reiterate why they can win, not expose the flaws they have.

When the Clinton and Obama partisans are complaining about the debate, they are really complaining about the system that brought them the debate. Maybe after this year they'll decided that they need to reform it. If they lose in November you can bet that the 2012 primary season will be run differently, if they win it still should be. The beast that is "fairness" will cause the problems in the future again.

Read The Full Post!

Michigan and Florida Matter?

The Wall Street Journal is kind of slow to catch on to certain things. After both Michigan and Florida's Democratic primaries; both of no consequence yet since their delegations were decertificed; I said that someone would be trying to seat those delegates.

Low and Behold, the Journal has caught on to that idea and started asking questions about how that would be handled. New primaries or caucus's in both states, using combined voting totals have been suggested (and rejected by Florida). A convention fight on the credentials committee is probably going to be the most likely scenario, but one that Clinton wouldn't be happy with. The committee would be based on vote totals, so like the primaries, it would be split pretty evenly, and could get ugly.

The other option, that no one likes, is just telling the two states that they don't get any delegates, as the rules stated when they moved their primaries. With the number of general election electoral votes at stake no one likes that idea. Telling that many people their primary votes don't count could put both states at risk come November.

The whole situation begs for the two parties to get together, and come up with a new primary system. Possibly leaving the four original early states, Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina as the first primaries, then coming up with say 5 or 6 regional dates the rest of the states vote on.

By mixing large and small states into each of the 6 groups, the likelihood of eliminating a candidate before someone votes gets reduced. It would also give the candidates more time to focus on states, instead of having 22 of the vote on Super Tuesday it might only be 7 or 8.

Here's how I'd envision the map, each region would have at least one big state, and no more than 8 states in any of them. (no, the two green areas wouldn't be voting together, I goofed with the colors).

I would think either the north east, with New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania or the midwest with Ohio, Michigan and Illinois would be the choice for the last primaries, making it even more likely that there are relevant candidates available for the voters in those states.

Read The Full Post!

Super Tuesday Fizzles

Many years ago; unfortunately not so many that I can't remember; there was no "Super Tuesday" primary races. Primaries were scatter from hell to breakfast, so to speak, starting in January and running meaningfully through late April. However, the parties didn't really like that, as they didn't get a presumptive nominee until pretty late in the game, especially when they had to run against an incumbent. Instead of concentrating on the other camp's candidates, they were having to argue with and beat up those in their own party.

Super Tuesday was supposed to be the solution, a big enough block of states, including 4 of the big ones, California, New York, New Jersey, and Illinois. A day big enough to make the nominee known, so that money could be spent on fighting the enemy, not one's own family.

Yesterday, however, fizzled as far as Super Tuesday's go, especially for the democrats. Instead of coming out with a presumptive nominee, they have a dead heat, and a lot of primaries to go, and the possibility of going to the convention without a clear cut winner.

For the GOP the far right isn't happy, John McCain has built a pretty close to insurmountable lead, especially with Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee splitting the vote of those who don't support McCain. While both of the others have said they are sticking around, it won't be easy to raise the gobs of cash needed to keep going with McCain holding better than a 2-1 delegate lead over both of them.

One interesting number, to me, came out of yesterday, it was the numbers on independent voters in the GOP contests. Nearly 70% of them went for McCain. While a lot of the talking heads are pointing to his less than 40% of self id'd conservatives voting for McCain the independent number is as big, or bigger. You can't win general elections without getting independents to listen to you. McCain seems to be able to do that much better than either other candidate in that race.

Read The Full Post!