BY MIKE CETERA
UPDATED: July 13
A new poll shows Dennis Hastert remains a popular figure in these parts, but he is far from unbeatable should he decide to run again.
Hastert would start out with a 63 percent approval rating and 55 percent of the vote, Lynn Sweet reported in the Chicago Sun-Times on Tuesday.
The poll, conducted by one of the Democrats vying to replace Hastert, also shows things look particularly grim for the GOP if Hastert decides to retire.
The complete poll is interesting in that it showed that President Bush's unfavorables in the district are high -- 52 percent compared to 27 percent for Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and 46 percent for Gov. Blagojevich.More hopeful for the Democrats in the far west suburban and Downstate district that almost stretches to the Mississippi River is this: In a "generic" House match-up for November 2008 (a nameless Republican vs. a nameless Democrat), Democrats trump Republicans 40 percent to 30 percent.
It seems to me that if Hastert plans to retire, he should announce it sooner rather than later to give Republicans more time to mount a credible campaign and to raise the cash needed to keep the seat in GOP control. What's a more perfect time for Hastert to announce he's bowing out than at his annual Farmers' Picnic later this week?
UPDATE BELOW:
A story today asks the basic question, what is Denny going to do, when?
Reporters Steve Lord, Matt Hanley and Heather Gillers talked to a number of the usual suspects in the GOP regarding Hastert's decision on seeking re-election and whether he'll say anything about his future today at his annual Farmers' Picnic fundraiser. The reporters also spoke with some who didn't want their names used, and for obvious reasons. Some Republicans appear to be getting antsy for Hastert to make a decision.
"How can he get all those people out there and give his speech and shake everyone's hand with everyone asking him the question and not say what he's going to do?" one area GOP member said. "I hope he has an answer real soon."
Realistically, how long can Hastert hold out before making his intentions known?
Ask one of the guys who ran for Mayor of Aurora about how polls reflect what the voting populace is really thinking...
Also ask Blair Hull about the effectiveness of tossing a lot of your own money into a primary.
REPLY FROM MIKE CETERA:
Hey OneMan, thanks for posting. And, yes, feel free to exhale. I'm happy to give some pub to a blog that doesn't rely on ripping off copyrighted material and ridiculous spin to make its point. So, to everyone out there, check out One Man's Thoughts.
I also read some of the comments over at Capitol Fax about this issue, and I guess I just don't get it. What's the point of taking a poll if it doesn't "reflect what the voting populace is really thinking?" In other words, why would candidates waste their money if polls aren't accurate?
And, for every Blair Hull, there's a Peter Fitzgerald. Didn't he spend more than $6 million of his own money to beat State Comptroller Loleta Didrickson in the 1998 Republican U.S. Senate primary?
Your right about Fitzgerald but he also at least held elective office and had a bit of base to start from.
The problem is if he tosses a million dollars at the primary and Linda runs he is going to have to spend some of that money to bring her down a notch. That may help him win the primary but also cost him some votes in Aurora if he makes it to the second round.
Also it seems that locally political success is more about relationships than anything else at some level. It will be interesting to see how a million dollars helps with that.
Regardless it should be fun to watch.
Hi Mike,
First off thanks for covering this race - and I appreciate the notice you gave me a few days ago. I really do believe the 14th District Congressional race may be one of the most exciting races in the area.
I think it's really misleading to portray Bill Foster as discussed above - he's a long-time district resident (moving into the Fox Valley area in 1984 and raising a family; working at Fermi Lab for 22 years; and seeing his son graduate from Batavia High School and his daughter graduate from Aurora's Illinois Math and Science Academy). His roots are substantial. Having met him and talked with him for a good hour plus, I can say he comes across as very down to earth, informed and serious about running for office.
What's been Bill's method of operation his adult life? He finds what he wants to do, he does the work necessary and he is successful and committed in what he does. The examples:
- In 1975, 19 year-old Bill and his brother borrowed $500 from their parents and created in their basement Electronic Theatre Controls, a theater lighting manufacturing company with a current market share of more than 50% in the U.S. - and one that has 500 good-paying mid-western jobs. Bill could have sat on his laurels with the company - he didn't.
- Bill went to Harvard and graduated with a PhD in Physics in 1984. He then moved to the Fox Valley area to work at Fermi Lab - designing equipment, managing multi-million dollar construction and research projects and participating in cutting-edge physics experiments and discoveries. Bill could have retired after 22 years as a very accomplished scientist - he didn't.
- Bill was concerned about the direction the country was taking under George Bush and hearkened back to his family political roots. Bill's father was both a scientist and a civil rights lawyer who helped write the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964. Bill's mother worked for Illinois Senator Paul H. Douglas and, among other accomplishments, helped Illinois police officers get college degrees and helped college students become police officers. Bill went to a Democratic congressional candidate gathering to see the candidates and, after some research on them, decided to volunteer for Iraqi War Veteran Patrick Murphy's campaign in 2006. Bill worked a number of campaign positions, came up with an innovative way of maximizing campaign voter contact, and despite being in a historically Republican district - Democrat Murphy won. Bill then worked for Murphy as an aide in Washington, learning the nuts and bolts of legislation and helping write some.
Then Bill came home and commissioned the poll you mention above to see if he could win in his home congressional district and help address some of the important challenges this country faces - challenges that have been neglected. The results were pretty positive for a Democrat - people are looking for a new direction and wants action on getting out of the Iraq War, on making health care more accessible and affordable and on restoring fiscal responsibility among other issues. Bill has found what he wants to do - and he has begun the work necessary to do it - working on a congressional campaign and with a congressman, commissioning the poll, assembling a quality campaign and devoting his own money to the race. It won't be an easy race - but I wouldn't bet against Bill. If past is prologue, Bill is successful in what he does.
I don't like the fact that millionaires - no matter what party they belong to, are always running for office. America really needs to elect honest, hardworking, inteligent citizens who represent the average Joe on the street. Millionaires DON"T represent the average Joe - they represent the top 1%.
No vote for Foster from me.
Hastert does not look out for the middle class, open secrets .org reports that he got 130,000 dollars for his campaign form big oil. he voted against the employee freedom of choice act that gives workers the right to vote and join a union. he covered up mark Foley the congressman involved in the page scandal. he made 2 million dollars on the parkway deal. the Medicare bill he sponsor looks out for the drug companies it is a bad bill because the government cannot bargain with the drug companies on the price of prescription drugs in Medicare. he also supported this big mess called Iraq. he also took away our rights with the patriot act. what has Hastert done but look out for special interest. How many years did he vote to raise his salary before congress raised the minimum wage. Time for the voters of the 14 district to wake up and vote this guy out.
Hi Al,
I am for public financing of candidates at all levels and think that a major problem with the way things are now is that too often the only people that can seem "clean" because they don't need to raise money are the wealthy. It limits the pool of quality candidates. That said, you do need money to run a campaign effectively - that's reality - and right now we don't have public financing - that's reality too.
As to your particular criticism, deciding to vote for or against a candidate purely based on their wealth as opposed to where they stand on the issues seems pretty short-sighted. FDR did more for "common people" than had ever been done before with a legacy that lasts to this day. FDR was wealthy - and born wealthy - but as far as I can tell that in no way diminishes his accomplishments.
By contrast, the president preceding FDR was Herbert Hoover, who lost his father at six years old, his mother at nine and became an orphan. While he grew to be a financially successful adult, he certainly knew poverty from personal experience, unlike Roosevelt. Yet while Roosevelt is known as the friend of the common man for creating programs like Social Security and the WPA, Hoover is known for Hoovervilles and doing nothing to alleviate suffering during the Great Depression. If income were the only meaningful indicator of results - "average" people would have celebrated Hoover's legacy, not Roosevelt's.
In our system of government we want people who lead. And a one really good way to show that leadership is whether or not a candidate can assemble a team to accumulate a big pile of money with which to run.
Personally I wish we would just change the contest to a a bake sale like contest where the one who collects the most money wins. Then we can take that pile of money and plow it back into the government as opposed to giving to media outlets. But at the end of the day if a leader is not able to assemble an organization to be financially competitive it is not really very likely I would want them to have the job.
Without a doubt there are exceptions, but politics is a game of persuasion. And if you can't persuade people to pay for you to run how can you persuade them to do other things?