April 10, 2006

A view from downdistrict

Saw this comment at Rich Miller's Capitol Fax and felt it was worth highlighting.
VanillaMan - Monday, Apr 10, 06 @ 10:49 am:

Watching from the southern tier of this congressional district, I resent watching these local Quad City hacks trolling for support without consideration of Decatur or Springfield. If the Democratic party decides to annoint one of these local lightweights, they won’t get support outside their little island.

When this district was gerrymandered to include every Democrat outside Cook or St. Clair counties, it created an embarrassment of communities with no relationship to one another.

With no incumbant for the first time in a quarter century, there is no reason to assume our support. We aren’t voting for a RI or Moline politician to represent Macoupin county, Springfield or Decatur. The Democrat’s assumption of our support show their disinterest in choosing a candidate with wide appeal.

Zinga won by going outside the Quad Cities and building support in the rest of the 17th District. If the Democrats think they can just annoint one of their local hacks from Rock Island and win, they are making a big mistake.

Freed from a lifetime commitment to Lane Evans, the 17th is open to consider both candidates, Zinga, and whoever gets the backroom deal from the Quad City hustlers.

Probably words which would be dangerous to ignore.


At 4/10/2006 4:40 PM, Blogger Dave Barrett said...

How interesting!
The local newspaper experts are saying that anything other than a few party bosses picking the candidate and all the other Democrats quickly closing rands behind this selection hurts the Democrats and makes then look to be in "disarray".

This fellow says that what would really hurt the Democrats is to have a candidate that was picked by just a few party honchos and presented to the District as our new candidate.

My gut tells me that the people in the newspaper who are advising us to to quickly agree on a selection so as to appear "unified" and not "messy" do not have the best interests of the Democratic Party at heart.

At 4/10/2006 5:18 PM, Blogger Carl Nyberg said...

Looking merely at geography, is there anyone better positioned to deliver for the Dems than Sen. John Sullivan?

At 4/10/2006 5:51 PM, Blogger maybesomeday said...

My geography says Sullivan doesn't even live in the 17th district.

Why doesn't he just run as a Republican in the 18th District against LaHood. That makes a lot more sense!

He is pretty right wing on his views and not in line with the ideals I support.

I am sick of Republicans pretending to be Democrats...Enough already!

At 4/10/2006 7:42 PM, Blogger diehard said...

No thanks I would prefer a Democrat replace Lane Evans!

At 4/10/2006 8:41 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with this. That is why we all must unite behind Lane Evans friend Phil Hare. He is the only one that can pull it all together with the help of Lane Evans.

At 4/10/2006 11:35 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey, maybesomeday, the last time I checked Sen. John Sullivan won one of the toughest targeted races against the Republicans in downstate history. Republicans and Sen. Laura Kent Donahue spent something like $2.5 million to beat him because he is a rising star in our party. They failed.
Sullivan would make mincemeat of Ms. Zinga.

I'm not taking shots at Hare or Boland or Schwiebert, the other Dems, and if you're a true Democrat I'd appreciate your not taking shots at Democrat Sullivan.

Your attitude will definitely help elect Andrea Zinga, and maybe that's your motivation here.

At 4/10/2006 11:46 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Earth to "maybesomeday":

Democrat Sen. John Sullivan beat right-wing Sen. Laura Kent Donahue, one of those very popular state senators in the 17th CD.
Sullivan won, despite state republicans dumping nearly $3 million to beat him. Sullivan is strong with labor.

Don't know about you, but that kind of candidate might be pretty damn good in a race against Republican Zinga.

And how dare you call Senator Sullivan a Republican. I think if any Democrat from the Quad Cities to Springfield read your statement they would laugh nonstop. I'll await your retraction.

At 4/11/2006 12:11 AM, Blogger youngdem503 said...

Anon. 23:35 let's look at the facts before you say she's taking shots A. Sullivan is pro-gun B. he's pro-life C. he's anti-union last time I check my ABC's he's not big on the Democratic ideals. I'm not taking shots at Sullivan, in fact I've met him he's a nice guy but just not the type that would be best to succeed someone like the Great Lane Evans.

At 4/11/2006 6:42 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

YoungDem, look at the district and look at the state of Illinois, outside Cook County. There are more pro-life, gun owners in Southern, Central and Western Illinois then anywhere else, who actually vote. I am pro-life, I own a gun, I am from a union family. I am a bad Democrat? Nope not at all. Matter of fact, I am a pretty good damn Democrat.

At 4/11/2006 6:43 AM, Blogger nicodemus said...

Being "pro-gun" is a good thing. and it is a match for the district. "Real Democrats" always found it embarrassing that Lane Evans was anti-gun and got F's on his NRA report card.
We need more Democrats who will stand up for the 2nd Amendment ...and DEFEND that position, not backpeddle like Glenn Poshard did in '98.

Also, we need Democrats who will listen to their constituents by making some pro-gun votes. Lane Evans never had the backbone to stand up to the liberal, anti-gun lobby. He was a big disappointment on this issue. Phil Hare would be no different.

At 4/11/2006 9:39 AM, Blogger highxlr8r said...


While I can partially understand the sentiment in that post you pasted in, it clearly comes from a Republican, and may not reflect what Democrats down there are thinking.

The post praises Zinga, and clearly refers to the Democratic party as if they are outside of it.

At 4/11/2006 10:23 AM, Blogger the underground said...


Sullivan is anti-union? Where did you ever get this concept?

Whats wrong with being a Democrat and pro-gun? We live in the midwest for crying out loud. Pro-gun or pro sportsman seems to represent a majority of the demographic in the 17th district. This isn't inner city chicago!

At 4/11/2006 10:34 AM, Anonymous UNDECIEDEDVOTERSFORhare said...

The Southern end of this district are little more than undeucated hicks. They will do as Lane Evans says!

Lane controls their hearts and votes. Don't think that Evans, Gianulis and Jacobs are not guiding Congressman Hare's path to power.

Congressman Philip J. Hare is the future of the 17th District. It is time for all others bow to his reich.

The Dope must do as we say!

At 4/11/2006 12:26 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hillary Clinton is in Chicago today hosting a fundraiser for Robert Casey, well known pro-life Democrat from Pennsylvania trying to beat Senator Rick Santorum. We have to stop beating up fellow Democrats for not adhering to the ideological purity about which you think you are positioned to sit in judgment.

Whether we like it or not, Democrats from rural areas (red counties) might be more favorable inclined to back gun owner's rights than urban folks. But at the end of the day we are all Democrats under the big tent that is our party. If we can't say something nice about our fellow Dems, let's not post anything at all.

At 4/11/2006 12:52 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I ask you dope. Do you feel lucky?

At 4/11/2006 2:28 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

I AM lucky.

Or are you propositioning me?

Or is that another dumb ass threat?

I'm confused... help me out.

At 4/11/2006 2:50 PM, Blogger the underground said...

Just a suggestion. As democrats we should work together to find a candidate that will represent the values of the entire district. Redistricting is coming in just over four years. Wouldn't it be nice to have a candidate that can win without gerrymandandering the district again?

At 4/11/2006 3:35 PM, Anonymous paladin said...

anon@6:42, nicodemus, underground and anon@12:26 all have a point. The Democrats around here are not like the coastal elite Democrats. Democrats here are mostly blue collar and are therefore more culturally conservative. I think the national Democrat party made a major mistake when it froze out cultural conservative Dems. I think this is why John Kerry made such a poor showing in the 17th Dist. (plus he was a sucky candidate, IMO). My thinking now is that the perfect scenario for RICO would be to have Gianulis push Hare and have all accept him. Hare then goes down in defeat to Zinga (herself a weak candidate). Gianulis then loses his power as kingmaker and a new Democrat leadership will emerge. Also, the Republican Party will be energized by Zinga's win and pick themselves off the floor and RICO once again has a viable two-party system. Then the race for the Congressperson of the 17th in '08 will be vibrant and competitive with both Democrats and Republicans fielding strong candidates. Yes, it's true----I still believe in the Easter Bunny!

At 4/11/2006 5:04 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I tnhik you mdae a good ponit unitl you siad Jonn G wolud lsoe his chiamransihp to an uknwon preosn. Are you lonoy? Who wuold taht be? Do tlel. Plseae.

At 4/11/2006 5:53 PM, Blogger nicodemus said...

A lot of us who were lifetime Democrats LEFT the Democratic party precisely because of the gun issue and the rising tide of knee-jerk liberalism.
We used to deliver a lot of votes and did a lot of the campaign work necessary to win elections. But you know what? We got tired of being embarrassed by half the candidates on the ticket.. and then having to apologize for the other half.
But hey, you "true Democrats" know everything. Good luck winning elections without us.
Mrs. Zinga will be a good congresswoman and a good reality check for Dems who have had it too good for too long. Time to restore some balance.

At 4/12/2006 5:53 AM, Blogger diehard said...

Id rather be a knee-jerk Liberal than a poor Republican Wanna -Be any day!
Show me legislation were the Republicans are one centimeter different on guns than the Democrats?!
Another thing half of these so called "gun friendly" congressmen and legislators neither hunt or even own a gun.
They just want to get elected.

At 4/12/2006 8:12 AM, Blogger highxlr8r said...

One more thought. Have any of the so-called former Democrats actually noticed that "gun control" democrats have gotten elected across the country, including in Illinois, and yet none of them have taken away the guns of hunters and sportsmen? Do you think this might be the NRA creating a boogeyman in order to boost Republican votes?

I suggest looking at what is real than buying that line.

At 4/12/2006 10:05 PM, Anonymous Bigmex said...

I don't think the 17th is full of culturally conservative Dems. They may not be knee-jerk gun-controllers, but they're smart enough to see through the line of BS that the NRA tries to shove down our throat every election. They may not be NARAL members, but they aren't into bombing Planned Parenthood clinics either.

At 4/12/2006 10:15 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

BigMex is right ... the 17th is very moderate, which would make Mark Schwiebert or John Sullivan potentially damn good candidates for the general election.

At 4/13/2006 11:59 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Schwiebert a moderate. If you think moderare means republican then you are right on track.

At 4/14/2006 8:34 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

this would make Hare an extreme liberal which is just what this district does not need.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home