By Chris Robling -
I don't know Laurie Higgins, who has written an election summation that says, 'the way to stop moderates from getting elected is to make sure they do not get elected.'
Ms. Higgins notes what some have discussed for more than 30 years: The moderates do not like us. They say they do -- to get our votes -- and then they go to Springfield and put their ballast in the bottom of the liberal's boat, leaving conservatives adrift, she asserts. It is a time-honored view.
Ms. Higgins says, conservatives "can [stop moderates] by voting for their opponents." That would be either the Democrat or the Libertarian. And she goes on to say that conservatives have to escape the trap of thinking about "the next 4, 6 or 8 years [sic]" and instead, taking a longer view.
Okay. Got it.
Replies: First, if your action assists hapless Pat Quinn, Illinois demi-Governor, then you are responsible for all he does in the four years he may win as a result. If you can bear that, then you are no conservative, you are a teenybopper in a tirade over losing the primary in which the "immoderate" (Ms. Higgins' word) candidate prevailed over your conservative choice.
Second, Ms. Higgins' perspective on the conservative time horizon is precisely wrong. I will now repeat what I have said since the first time Jack Roeser bemoaned conservatives' standing in Illinois Gopdom to me in Carpentersville, in December 1983, some 31 years ago: "The party is there for the taking, if you win the NEXT race."
The "next race" to which i was referring that frigid morning at Otto Engineering was the precinct (and township and ward) committeemen races. But the rule applies to ALL races.
Ms Higgins, right now, should be organizing as many of our type as she possibly can for the spring 2015 school and municipal races. Win any of those, and you have a stronger base for the next round: state reps, committeemen, Congresspeople and the rest in the spring 2016 primaries.
If you believe in conservatism, have you helped position conservatives for the 2015 races? How about the 2016 races? Filing for 2015 concludes in December -- get cracking.
If you have not, then, why waste time complaining that Bruce Rauner is not your preferred gubernatorial candidate? Bruce knew enough to win his primary -- and we'll see if he cared enough about the general in a few days.
But, in terms of party choices, he did it the old fashioned way: He won. You want a conservative candidate? Fine. Make one a winner, don't be a whiner.
So, why Bruce, why not Pat? Hard to think i must answer this one the weekend before the election.
Look around you. See the state. Understand the pain. Medicaid is going bankrupt. Pensions -- the same. Schools? They do not educate. Parents? They are trapped. Jobs? They leave. Taxes? They rise and rise. Incomes decline. Corruption flourishes. Democrats? Dependent on taxpayer dollars laundered through their public employee union fronts. And worse, and so much sadly worse.
On Tuesday, do what you can -- for the State of Illinois. Don't act out your anger over losing the primary. The primary is over. Get over yourself, and think of what is best for all Illinoisans NOW, not what is best for conservatives 12 years from now -- as Ms. Higgins suggests.
Yes, it breaks my heart to see the Diana Rauner memo (nearby). Among other admissions, the memo ('Bruce is pro-choice!') shows Bruce spent two years trying to get something from Terry Cosgrove any nimrod could have told him he would never get.
That is the dumbest waste of time i have ever heard associated with Rauner, who is, in fact, a brilliant person -- but new to politics and thus susceptible to Fool's Errands.
Also, I believe Mrs. Rauner's memo gives an impression that Bruce reached out to and sat with the pro-lifers, heard them, and brought them around to understanding that backing him, a nearly down-the-line pro-abort, was better for them in this case:
"He won the primary despite his pro-choice stance, in part by convincing pro-lifers to put aside their views on this issue in favor of economic ones. [emphasis in original]"
Most conservatives know that nothing of the kind ever happened. Bruce and company, rightly / wrongly, goodly / badly, sincerely / insincerely, whatever, simply stiffed social issue conservatives.
I know of zero effort on his or his campaign's part to "convince" social types of anything, except that the campaign personally despised each and every one of them. It was suggested that they meet, if only to say, "We disagree, but we respect you, and we appreciate your votes in November, so, if elected, we guarantee an open door, if not our support." Never happened.
It is my belief that instead, the (early) Rauner campaign wanted the social issue conservatives to bellyache loudly about having no access to Rauner. It appeared to take every conceivable action to bring that complaining about. Much later, it hired a distinguished conservative organizer, who confronted any number of political fissures from what had gone before.
The reconciliation for which i have argued for decades again was postponed.
The very issuance of Mrs. Rauner's memo on Halloween proves the campaign failed to get its original message out to pro-abort voters. Personal PAC eviscerated Bill Brady in late October 2010, so one might have expected Rauner's folks to accomplish the comparatively simple task of saying, "He's pro-choice, just like you," highlighting their pro-choice advocacy, contributions, etc., some months ago, such that last minute reminders would be unnecessary. Seeing this memo now makes us ask, "What other self-evidently important tasks were fumbled?"
Further, publishing Mrs. Rauner's memo on the late afternoon of the Friday before Election Day says, in actions, if not words, that the tracking polls are so bad, that the $30 million campaign must ride on Diane’s slender shoulders to make the finish line.
This, i am afraid, is of a piece with the campaign's rejection of Bruce Rauner biography and testimonial advertising. Such would have portrayed steps on his extraordinary career, and the job-holding and pension-receiving beneficiaries of Rauner's work ethic and business acumen, testifying to his positive impact on them, personally. It would have closed the loop between, "successful" and "empathy," and thereby inoculated him against "profiteer." Simple, right?
Instead, the campaign chose to say comparatively little about Rauner, leaving the Quinn folks to color him in as a heartless Mr. Potter, bank owner in "It's a Wonderful Life," ready to push granny down the nursing home steps to get his pay-off and ride out of town. If you have seen a bit of TV this weekend, then you know, Bruce Rauner is a Halloween monster -- or at least Hapless Pat -- looking non-hapless -- says he is.
Rauner promised any number of us, on any number of occasions, that he would not be Mitt Romney. But his campaign did not get that message, and so it gave us almost no messages at all. Thus, Rauner is in a tight race when he should be ahead by seven to nine points. Illinois Goppers should be looking at winning five to seven house seats and three or four senate seats. But we aren't -- because the Rauner campaign never really knew what to say.
Even worse, he may follow Bill Brady into the "Loser" column.
Unless you vote for him. Because of what surrounds us, and because of how much worse it will get for innocent Illinoisans in four more years of Madigan-Cullerton-Hapless Pat, demi-Governor.
That is truly a horrible prospect -- for all of us, conservatives included.
Ms. Higgins, selfishly, ignores it, to settle scores in the Gopper coalition. She even ignores the sterling opportunity of Jim Oberweis. Many fail to see that if Rauner can pull this off, and if all Rauner voters vote for Jim, we MIGHT BEAT THE HORRID DURBIN, TOO!
'Winning' one for spite by losing the state for four years pales next to adding a sane and supremely capable person to detestable Springfield's "Big Three." It evaporates next to sending Dick Durbin home to the Springfield muck from whence he arose, 32 years ago. Too few conservatives have seen this as a
"Bruce and Jim" ticket -- but there is still time. Tell a few of your buddies.
If you are inclined to act-out by junking your vote, please reconsider. Rauner's hurt himself by running a no-message campaign. In a close race, we can be the folks who save his election. Help Illinois, and then claim your own place. After all, the party is there for the taking, if you win the NEXT race.
The NEXT race today -- is Bruce Rauner on Tuesday.
See you on Channel 9, WGN-TV, Tuesday from 7 p.m. to close.
