Why defeat in Hastert’s district is a ‘disaster’ for the GOP

It was the first big election of 2008, and Republicans had every reason to feel pretty good about it. Illinois may be a reliably “blue” state, but its 14th congressional district — up until recently represented by former House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R) — is considered a safe Republican seat. Not only have voters in the 14th backed Hastert by wide margins for decades, but the district backed Bush over Kerry by 11 points, and Bush over Gore by 12. (Ronald Reagan, for what it’s worth, was born in this district.)

And now, it’s represented by a Democrat.

Stunning many who considered the district west of Chicago reliably Republican territory, Bill Foster, a physicist and Democrat, won a special election on Saturday to fill the Congressional seat that J. Dennis Hastert, the former speaker of the House, held for two decades.

Mr. Foster’s success deeply disappointed Republicans, in part for its broader implications: the victory in this early race may buoy Democrats as they look ahead to a string of Republican retirements this fall.

Mr. Hastert was one of the best-known Republican members of Congress and he was elected from what was once a Republican stronghold.

With all the precincts reporting, Foster, a political novice, beat James Oberweis, a dairy company owner, 53% to 47%.

A senior Republican official last night called the loss a “disaster.” It’s an entirely reasonable description.

The Republican Party in DC and in Illinois not only expected to keep this seat with a well-known candidate — Oberweis’ business is well known locally, and he has run for statewide office twice in recent years — they needed to win to demonstrate the party’s ability to win in November. To lose in a GOP district would point to serious problems down the road.

So, the party invested heavily. It didn’t matter.

By last week, the National Republican Congressional Committee had poured $1.2 million into this race; the Democratic Congressional Committee had given more than $620,000.

In terms of national politics, Obama cut an ad for Foster, while McCain campaigned for Oberweis. Score one for Obama.

On a related note, as David Kurtz reminds us, it’s yet another setback for the National Republican Congressional Committee: “Think Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK) is having fun yet as chairman of the NRCC? Since taking over the NRCC after the 2006 midterms, he’s struggled to compete with the DCCC financially, faced an ugly embezzlement scandal within the NRCC, and now lost the seat held by the last Republican Speaker of the House.”

Indeed, it’s also worth remembering that the NRCC, after a year of fundraising struggles, spent 20% of its cash on hand to win this race. And lost.

Republicans entered this race with everything on their side. They spent lots of money, ran a well-known candidate, took on a Democratic rookie, all in a district that’s backed Republicans consistently for decades.

If the GOP doesn’t look at these results and feel awfully nervous, the party just isn’t paying attention.

Post Script: DDay added this gem: “Put it this way: if I told you in the middle of 2006 that Democrats would control Tom DeLay AND Dennis Hastert’s seats in Congress within two years, would you believe me?”

Mark Penn said this district doesn’t matter. It’s always voted Republican.

  • Seems like this should be good ammo for Obama to make his case to the superduperdelegates. Hillary at the top of the ticket would be toxic for the competitive down-ticket races. She could not only lose the presidency for herself, but also turn out Republicans in droves, costing Dems federal, state, and local seats. Obama’s coattails are already starting to look impressive.

  • Oberweis is a 4 time loser of elections. I fail to see how he was a good candidate, other than he was a Republican. But lately it seems the Republicans have had difficulty in finding good candidates. May this trend continue.

    This was a great win, no doubt about it, but it also shows the Republicans they cannot judst throw in someone with an R after their name and expect to win every race in heretofore Republican districts.

    Of course someone will comment that the phrase “quality Republican candidate” is oxymoronic. And it just may be.

  • I just noticed that at least one major “news source”, CBS News, has acknowledged that Hillary didn’t “win” Texas. They give her 84 delegates while giving 89 to Obama.

    I don’t know what it is with American punditry, but they call “win”… even by the narrowest of margins under proportional distribution. Perhaps it’s our Puritan background? Black-and-white, good-bad, on-off, us-them thinking? Not many seem to have noticed, but t’s the Republicans who prefer simple-minded winner-take-all. Or maybe it’s that TeeVee has so dumbed its audience down that shades of victory elude description.

    At any rate, Obama won this “biggie” and we need to start saying so repeatedly.

  • And this is how the “war” will be won…not by putting every left-leaning hope into a Democrat sitting in the Oval Office, but by challenging Republicans at every level. Most importantly in the places where they feel safe.

    It may be just a case of the worm turning against more than a decade of corrupt and incompetent rule by the GOP, but it still deserves full encouragement. One (we) must look at the full slate of battles and prepare a strategy that is likely to result in winning enough of them to constitute victory in the “war”.

    Tactics brings you Pyrrhic victories; strategy brings you tickertape parades. The Clintons would be well served to read a little Plutarch.

  • i live in chicagoland, and this race was the talk of popular AM radio (and i don’t mean right wing radio). local pundits felt that if the republicans lost this seat it was a major harbinger of things to come in the fall. knock wood.

  • We have conquered the birthplace of the conservative deity, ReaganGod—and all that that implies….

  • #6

    Obama lost the popular vote by 200,000 votes thats a loss.

    ILL 14 doesn’t prove anything about Obama helping down ticket Oberweis was a terrible candidate.

  • A few thoughts from someone who lives in the district in question.

    Full disclosure: I voted for Foster.

    Oberwiess was a well known candidate who’s run for several offices unsuccessfully in the last several year but I don’t think that his noteriety helped him here. He’s VERY rich and the fact that he’s been able to mount several very expensive self funded campaigns and lost each of them has left people with the (correct, IMO) impression that he’s just trying to buy his way into an Illinois office. ANY office that he can get into at this point. Foster isn’t a welfare case either but at least he didn’t have the air of money and entitlement around him.

    Also, we need to factor in the fact that the Republican party in Illinois is still in shambles 4 years after Jack Ryan’s senatorial campaign meltdown and former Governor Jim Ryan’s corruption conviction. Putting up Alan Keyes as a quick replacement to Jack Ryan’s run against Barack Obama didn’t help either. Remembering Keyes talk about slave reparations to a bunch of down state farmers who wanted to hear about ethanol subsidies still makes me giggle, but I digress.

    Anyway, I wouldn’t read too many national implications into this election. Oberwiess may have been their best candidate but he wasn’t the right candidate and the Republicans here are still trying to rebuild after a some major setbacks over the last few years. Democratic motivation is high but there were a bunch of other factors at play here too.

    Incidentally, remember what I wrote about a Republican party meltdown in Illinois. Keep an eye on current Governor Rod Blagojevich and watch how the Democrats here didn’t learn any lessons from their Illinois Republican counterparts…

  • I agree with op99. Some of the superdelegates are undoubtedly nervous about their own campaigns in the fall and will be more than a little sensitive to the question of whether Obama’s potentially very long coat-tails could help them, whereas Hillary could bring out Republicans in droves while simultaneously depressing Democratic votes due to her negative campaigning. If Obama maintains his lead in fairly-won delegates (i.e., excluding Michigan and Florida), even superdelegates who favor Hillary should be very nervous about the effects on African-American support for Democrats if they pass over Obama and choose Clinton.

    According to the Chicago Tribune endorsement of Foster, Oberweis was apparently a poor condidate with a long history of extremely dishonest political ads. Still, it is nice to see a Republican rejected on account of their lies and distortions.

    Foster’s success on top of Obama’s successes in Wyoming and Texas impelled me to read the word “last” in Kurtz’s phrase “the last Republican Speaker of the House” as “final” rather than “most recent” 🙂

  • I am a native of IL14 and my folks still live there and are active in the community. They are solid republicans (unlike their sons) but they from the Bob Dole/Richard Nixon wing and not the Newt Gingrich wing. They REALLY do not like Oberweis and think he is a hypocritical bully. They were also miffed that the election was on a Saturday. So I wouldn’t read this as a national mandate, though I am encouraged that the Dems have fielded much stronger candidates in northern Illinois over the last four years than in the previous 30.

    Another point. My brother and I were discussing if they could possibly vote for a Democrat for president this year. We agreed – it is possible they could vote Obama if they viewed him as a protest vote or the lesser of two evils. But my mom wouldn’t vote for Hillary in a million years.

  • Good morning! It’s a bright sunny day here in South Florida, the melon is as sweet as honey and that fat fuck, Denny Hastert’s seat went to a Dem.

    You go, Barry-O!

  • Republicans entered this race with everything on their side. They spent lots of money, ran a well-known candidate, took on a Democratic rookie, all in a district that’s backed Republicans consistently for decades.

    The Empire Strikes Out II

    As Mudge points out, their well known candidate was well known for losing. But hey, he’s not a terrorist-appeasing DemoNcRat, so that’ll be enough to satisfy the rubes, er, voters.

    Seriously, the KoolAid must annihilate the long-term memory cells because these guys Just. Cannot. Learn. A bloody cockroach out performs a Repug when it comes to avoiding unpleasant stimulus.

    It wasn’t that long ago that another well-known (or at least infamous) ReThuglican got his arse handed to him by another rookie Democrat and things have only gotten worse under ReThug leadership. If that was too long ago for their tiny minds to remember Ohio shifting from Red to Blue in ’06 was another hint. But nope, gotta stick to the play book. Trot out jackass in suit. Make standard statements about terra, immigrants, values and the economy.

    If only they’d hold their breaths waiting for the inevitable victory…

  • Mudge (5): I fail to see how he was a good candidate, other than he was a Republican.

    This is an interesting observation, because in Congress the “R” is the only thing that matters. These Republicans do not actually represent districts. They represent the party. If there is a vote on something that is not going to go well with their constituents, the party tries to accomodate them, but only if they can reach their means without that vote.

    I know a lot of Dem’s wish the same were true for our party, but it is not. And I say, “good.”

  • Thank you, Howard Dean.

    Not just a fifty-state strategy… A 435 Congressional District strategy.

  • I was pleased to see a physicist win this election.
    There’s a mathematician running for Illinois state representative, against an incumbent though…

  • Lex @ #7 – I like your style. It is sweet indeed to see a Democrat beard the Republican lion in his own den, but I submit he will not stay there long – nor will the overall Democratic upswing be sustainable – if the current Democratic leadership cannot stop disappointing the voters with abject crawling to the Republicans and Bush. I’m glad to see a Democrat take that seat, because the Republicans would have blown a victory out of all proportion, as they do with every victory of any magnitude. However, the current simmering resentment does not bode well for incumbents of both disciplines.

  • Hey, Bill @ #10 – George W. Bush lost the popular vote in the general: how was that a win?

  • Oberweis is a neighbor. I know this man. This disasterous 14th district loss is very simple. A 15 year State Senator (Chris Lauzen) with a wonderful reputation was stepped over when Hastart chose to endorse Oberweis (a man who has NO political experience, has never held office and has lost all 3 previous attempts to office over his nasty, mean spiritied ads). What did Jim Oberweis ever do to deserve this endorsement? Why did Hastert choose this proven loser? That’s for the press to figure out, but let’s just it sure looks like poor planning and perhaps payback for the $$ Oberweis donated to Hastert’s elections. Look at the records. You tell me? Republicans didn’t lose this election. Hastert gift wrapped it for Foster by endorsing Oberweis, splitting the republican part right down the middle. What was a unified Republican party is now a shattered mess. And we owe it all to good old “coach” Denny Hastert. Unfortunately there were many republicans like me who were forced to decide between a man’s (Oberweis) character and our party lines. We couldn’t allow the ethics of Jim Oberweis to go to Washington to represent us just because he’s a republican. Thus many of us either didn’t vote at all since we couldn’t stomach Oberweis, or in my case, for the fist time ever I crossed over party lines and voted for democrate (Foster). I felt sick to my stomach over this mess. He wasn’t my political choice, but at least I can say that we’re sending a man with an honest reputation and ego under control, running for the right reasons. Hastert cost us this seat. He has continued to make disasterous decisions the last 2 years of his office. Can anyone say “Tom Folley”? And by the way, Hastert also cost the taxpayers of Illinois a couple million over this stupid, unnecessary “Saturday” election because he decided to quit early. That’s a whole other issue that the press will figure out at some point as to why. I can tell you in also involves changing lobbying laws (2008 changes them) whereby he couldn’t have received lobby and would have had to sit out for years if he didn’t quit before 2008. Denny, thank you for your years of great service, but you sold us out at the end. A sad ending for someone who served for the right reasons in the beginning.

  • The Illinois election is a harbinger. Howard Dean’s 50-state strategy is certainly paying off, and 2008 is for the Democrats to lose, which they know how to do. There could be a historic landslide for the Democrats if Obama and Clinton stop the ugliness soon. McCain will be elected, especially if Clinton is the nominee, and Obama is sidelined.

    Congress will stay in the hands of the Democrats no matter what, but with a smaller majority if McCain wins. Obama’s coat tails could give them a fillibuster- proof Senate and near veto-proof house.

  • Howdy, Neighbor!

    The circumstances of the Republicans’ choice of Oberweis to carry their banner aren’t exceptional. Today’s Banana Republicans have an uncanny knack for making dumb choices, for tolerating corruption, and for a tin-ear approach to constituent relations. They call it standing by their principles. I say that they have no principles, just a deluded ideology.

    Don’t give Denny all the blame – he was only the first among equals.

  • Chris @ 11:

    Incidentally, remember what I wrote about a Republican party meltdown in Illinois. Keep an eye on current Governor Rod Blagojevich and watch how the Democrats here didn’t learn any lessons from their Illinois Republican counterparts…

    Blago is corrupt and a horrible politician to boot, but one blow-dried empty suit isn’t going to drag down the entire Democratic party in IL. It’s too entrenched in the seats of power (i.e., here in Chicago) for a repeat of the post-Ryan GOP years. Which, by the way, wasn’t all Ryan’s fault — the GOP has weak links at every tier in Illinois, Ryan just provided the big fissure.

    Oberweis? He’s just a bad candidate with too much money. He always has been. Kind of like a Steve Forbes with less personality and a rabid anti-immigrant streak. I’m inclined to believe #21’s theory that there was some quid pro quo in allowing him to run.

    Still, knocking off Hastert’s seat was an important symbolic victory for the party. Kudos, Mr. Foster.

  • the oddest thing about the IL-14 race to this long-time illinois resident was the endorsement of foster by the conservative chicago tribune and the endorsement of oberweiss by the trying-to-regain-its-somewhat-populist-cred chicago sun-times (since they’re no longer owned by lord black of crossharbour, currently residing in a federal pen in florida).

  • Up-thread, a couple commenters speculated that superdelegates might see Obama’s coat-tails as advantageous in their own reelections. I think the opposite might also be true, that Obama scares the hell out of some establishment candidates. Here in MD-05, some speculated that Obama helped Democrat Donna Edwards unseat incumbent Al Wynn, a Democrat but a slug nonetheless.

  • Oberweis Neighbor said: “I felt sick to my stomach over this mess. He wasn’t my political choice, but at least I can say that we’re sending a man with an honest reputation and ego under control, running for the right reasons.”

    I fail to see how it was so difficult for this person to elect an honest man running for the right reasons. It might be wise to take a look at the Republican party and why you feel compelled to keep supporting the most corrupt political group in the history of the United States. You might find you have more in common with the evil Democrats than you think.

  • Obama lost the popular vote by 200,000 votes thats a loss.

    Not in Texas he didn’t. Better check your numbers, Bill @ #10. Obama did not lose the popular vote in Texas by 200,000. Didn’t happen.

  • One of the things that didn’t help Oberweis is that he didn’t have any data showing that Foster isn’t any kind of a moderate, but a hard-left stooge of Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama. Now through November, whomever runs against Foster will take his voting record to show what kind of charlatan he is, and tell it to those Foster fooled, the constituents.

  • …”hard-left stooge of Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama” — SteveIL

    You forgot George Soros. And Ted Kennedy. Oh, and Rosie O’Donnell, and Barbara Striesand, Susan Sarandon, Jane Fonda…

  • Like most puppets, Hastert crumpled without Tom DeLay’s hand up his fat ass for support.

    And like most objects large enough to have their own gravitational pull, his collapse has pulled down nearby orbiting bodies, in this case his would-be successor.

  • Congrats to Mr Foster! I read somewhere last night that both Foster and Olberweis will be running again in Nov, since yesterday’s election was only for completion of Hastert’s term. That both had already qualified for the Nov ballot. Is it too late for another Rep to qualify for that ballot? I just ask because I don’t want us thinking this seat is safe through 2010.

  • This is another in a string of embarrassing efforts for the Republican party in Illinois. The Senate loss with the Jack Ryan/Alan Keyes fiasco, the Judy Barr Tapinka slaughter, and now this loss. The Illinois Republican party is in need of repair. The question is have we hit bottom yet? The party needs a complete re-tooling and fresh blood. It it appears the old time club of “it’s my turn to run” has run out of steam.

  • I knew the Clinton faithful would find a way to spin this as an insignificant win. Thanks for not disappointing, Comeback Bill.

  • Did you see this little bit of election blips via those wonderful Diebold machines?

    In Illinois today, they are holding an election to replace Denny Hastert. On the Diebold touch-screen machines used by the hopelessly partisan Republican DuPage County Election Commission, the word “REPUBLICAN” is popping on to the screen, such that some precincts have reportedly taken to placing tape over the screen where that occurs. The DuPage board is extraordinarily slimy, hopelessly corrupt, overtly willing to break the law, have hired Republican operatives to do “PR” for them (both overtly and covertly), and have recently launched an all out effort, with the help of their corrupt friends in the local media, to to swiftboat the non-partisan citizen Election Integrity advocate citizen volunteers of the Illinois Ballot Integrity Project (IBIP).

    http://www.bradblog.com/

    And can someone tell me why the FCC isn’t looking into the whole Limbaugh asking people to break the law?

    The law in Ohio, the Ohio Revised Code, is very clear on what Republicans have done. ORC 3513.20 says:

    Before any challenged person shall be allowed to vote at a primary election , the person shall make a statement, under penalty of election falsification, before one of the precinct officials, blanks for which shall be furnished by the board of elections, giving name, age, residence, length of residence in the precinct, county, and state; stating that the person desires to be affiliated with and supports the principles of the political party whose ballot the person desires to vote; and giving all other facts necessary to determine whether the person is entitled to vote in that primary election. The statement shall be returned to the office of the board with the pollbooks and tally sheets . . . .

    3599.36 Election falsification reads:
    No person, either orally or in writing, on oath lawfully administered or in a statement made under penalty of election falsification, shall knowingly state a falsehood as to a material matter relating to an election in a proceeding before a court, tribunal, or election official, or in a matter in relation to which an oath or statement under penalty of election falsification is authorized by law, including a statement required for verifying or filing any declaration of candidacy, declaration of intent to be a write-in candidate, nominating petition, or other petition presented to or filed with the secretary of state, a board of elections, or any other public office for the purpose of becoming a candidate for any elective office, including the office of a political party, for the purpose of submitting a question or issue to the electors at an election, or for the purpose of forming a political party.

    Whoever violates this section is guilty of election falsification, a felony of the fifth degree.
    A person that commits election falsification can face six to twelve months in prison as well as a $2,500 fine according to Ohio sentencing guidelines.

    http://isaacs.newsvine.com/_news/2008/03/06/1348806-election-fraud-against-obama-in-ohio-more-comes-out

  • Oberweis Neighbor, I remember the days when Illinois Republicans were guys like Ev Dirksen and Chuck Percy; not right but maybe half the time, but well-intentioned and reasonable. What happened to y’all? Can it be laid solely at Big Jim’s feet, or his successor Edgar, who always looked to me like he came out of one of those kids’ plasti-form toys? First, they spent more than a decade systematically dismantling the civil service system, then

  • (Hmmm… that was weird!) Katie-bar-the-door!
    (Obama, btw, cut his political chops on the clean-up. That’s experience I can respect.)
    Anyway, good luck on eventually getting your party back. It must suck, having nobody sane to vote for.

  • Cookie: Your question is well founded and I certainly agree that the republican wows didn’t just start yesteday. I politics we have fallen from common desency to a new low that is embarassing and wrong. There are no angels in politics regardless of the party. But at some point we have to face up to the facts that where we have decended as a nation is damanging, depressing and wrong. This “I’ll do and say anthing as long as I get elected” hast to stop. Oberweis is a proven liar. However, it always starts at the top until the grass roots has enough. At this point, the grass roots voteres MUST decide if this is where we want to go. In the case of Jim Oberweis, running in a very dominant republican district, the voters sent the message that they are not willing to continue this garbage. And for that, I can say that I’m proud of my fellow grass root republicans for doing the right thing and not electing Jim Oberweis to office. We’ve said the same thing 4 times…Jim Oberweis…please just go away and let us rebuild. You’re the 14th District’s worst nightmare.

  • This is a great win for science. Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (Fermilab) is in this district, and lost a lot of money in the recent budget because nobody was there to stick up for it. Employees and physicists have been furloughed because of this, setting back the US’s edge in particle physics, almost irreparably. Good for Foster.

  • Well, at least we saw the future, here in Ill; the dismantling of decent govenment and the first steps back from it should be familiar territory for our Senator

  • Ms Joanne,
    I think Isaacs is wrong in his particular charge of fraudulent voting in Ohio. Ohio’s primary is not quite open, technically, but anyone can change party registration up to the moment of voting, most simply just by asking for a particular party’s ballot when you register to vote, which qualifies you as a member of that party. The law that Isaacs cited refers only to “challenged voters”, which I understand to be someone challenged to prove their bonafides (name, address, citizenship, voter registration, etc.) by a poll worker or by another candidate’s poll watcher, or perhaps even by a fellow voter. (We now have to show photo ID, or a utility bill, to prove identity and residence to vote in Ohio, but this is new, and we used to vote merely by a verbal claim of identity and signing the election rolls, so the older parts of the election laws still have quite a bit to say about challenging suspected fraudulent voters. ) Once challenged, it is up to the challenged voter to provide an appropriate response to the challenge or (I think) their vote is held as provisional until everything can be sorted out. However, if someone gets to vote without being challenged, then their vote is perfectly legal, no matter what their intentions. It is possible to challenge after the election on the basis of signature not matching the signature on the original registration form, but challenges to intent would be impossible, because how can anyone really prove fraudulent intent in a vote?

    I like having a mix of closed and open primaries in different states. Closed primaries make candidates appeal to their base, who will be needed to contribute money & do volunteer work. Open primaries make candidates try to appeal to independents and members of the other party, whose votes will be needed to win in the fall. Also, open primaries invite new people into the party, which is one way for political parties to grow. Furthermore, it is instructive to learn if candidates try to keep selling the same message in both closed and open primaries, or if they try to get away with singing different tunes to different audiences.

  • Let us wish Mr. Foister the best in providing top notch honest representation for his citizens so the district will see the error in their previous habits.

    Let us not squander this opportunity to earn the chance we’ve been given.

  • Comments are closed.