Crain's Greg Hinz takes a look at Steve Sauerberg's race for U.S. Senate and concludes: "Unless something changes fast, 2008 will become the year in which the Illinois GOP lost its last shred of relevance." From the column:
In most states, electing a U.S. senator is a big deal. Campaigns clash and TV ad wars erupt. Washington big shots drop by to endorse. The winner gets a six-year membership in the world's most exclusive club, don'tcha know.
It used to be that way in Illinois. Remember Carol Moseley Braun against Peter Fitzgerald and Alan Dixon? Or, a bit earlier, Chuck Percy vs. Alex Seith. Barack Obama against, well, who cares? It was Barack Obama.
So, quick, tell me who the Republicans have put up this year against incumbent Illinois Sen. Richard Durbin — the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate and quite possibly the majority leader of that body not too far in the future.
If you can't recall the name, you have lots of company.
Hinz goes on to assert that Sauerberg "will not embarrass the party like the jaw-dropping Alan Keyes did." However, it's worth noting that Sauerberg has run a rather perplexing campaign so far.
Early in the year, it was clear that something was wrong when he bought ads on liberal websites declaring: "We must stop liberal Dick Durbin." Then, at a press conference in April, he said with a seemingly straight face: "I think Barack Obama will probably endorse us." Then in June, he challenged Durbin to "commit" to retaining U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald -- even though both Durbin and Obama have never wavered in their support of the prosecutor. Most recently, his campaign put out a radio spot that violated the Federal Election Commission guidelines on advertising disclaimers.
It's not "Keyesian" embarassment, but still ...
Post new comment