Durbin lacks the profile of a winner

Chicago Sun-Times ^ | April 24, 2002 | STEVE NEAL , paniced liberal

[SpyderTim]

Usconservative: "I would expect to see Durbin hitting on Durkin's pro-life voting record (screaming at women that Durkin will take away their "choice")"

---------

Exactly. Conservatives need to work harder to convince liberals and Democrats that Republicans aren't going to take away their "choice." In addition, conservatives have to stop making abortion the No. 1 issue. This applies mostly in liberal to moderate states like Illinois. There is no other way for a conservative to get elected.

BillyBoy: "(although Bush solidly beat McCain in the Illinois GOP primary)"

----------

Keep in mind that McCain's primary campaign was more or less finished already.

[KQQL]

Durbin is a RAT HOLE>>..I hope he loses to Durkin

[Coop]

What is troubling to Democratic strategists is that Durbin ran weaker last month than Moseley-Braun in the '98 primary.

This statement is HUGE, in my book. Yet Durbin is still being carried a "Safe Dem" race at the sites I've visited recently. I must admit to not considering this race a legitimate opportunity for the GOP, but you've now got my attention. :-)

Unfortunately this alleged lack of support doesn't show up in the polls, at least not yet. Mason-Dixon has a March 2002 poll (RV, 4% MOE) showing Durbin over Durkin 52-30%. But this article may help change those numbers around.

[Queen of Excelsior]

If Durkin wins, I can just hear the screaming from the "disenfrachised voters". "Their names are almost the same...I MEANT to vote for Durbin NOT Durkin... we demand a hand recount to discern the intent of the voters..."

[The Old Hoosier]

This applies mostly in liberal to moderate states like Illinois. There is no other way for a conservative to get elected.

That doesn't preclude running pro-life candidates, though. Fitzgerald is basically a disappointment for conservatives on everything but life issues (note his vote on ANWR). I like him, though.

[ken5050]

Is it true that Carol Mosely Braun is STILL trying to find New Zealand?

[BillyBoy]

>> Exactly. Conservatives need to work harder to convince liberals and Democrats that Republicans aren't going to take away their "choice." In addition, conservatives have to stop making abortion the No. 1 issue. This applies mostly in liberal to moderate states like Illinois <<

Both Fitzgerald and Reagan were unapologetic on the life issue and won handily in Illinois. While we should NOT try to shove the issue down people's throats (it's not like we can magically make it illegal because we want to), pro-life politicians also need not apologize for their beliefs. For some odd reason, it's become acceptable on FR to capitulate on the abortion issue, but you get crucified by conservatives if you do so on the 2nd amendment. I find this disturbing. Unborn children are just as important as the right to own a gun, and probably more so.

Durbin was once pro-life but "adjusted" his views once he ran for statewide office. If he wants to attack Durkin on abortion, Durkin can simply remind everyone how consistent Dick has been on "a woman's right to choose". If he pulls a Corinne Wood and tries pinning the tired old "extremist" label on Durkin; the GOP can simply run ads asking if the Illinois Dems consider their Chairman (Madigan) and their 1998 Gubernatorial nominee (Poshard) "too extreme for you since they hold the SAME stance on abortion?" In fact, this is exactly what Fitzgerald did when Mosely-Braun tried attacking him for being pro-life.

It's true that a solid majority of Illinois do not favor overturning Roe v. Wade and legalizing abortion. ON THE OTHER HAND, the media never mentions that Illinois' overwhelmingly FAVOR "reasonable" restrictions on abortion like eliminating taxpayer funding of it, banning late term abortion, and fully enacting parental-notification laws. The biased media won't point out that guys like Durbin, Mosely-Braun, Jan Schanowsky, etc. are the ones "out of touch" on that part of the abortion debate. If Durkin is "extreme" because his position doesn't match the polls, then so is Durbin.

I'd like to see DICK Durbin just try to exploit this issue. Go ahead, Dickie, open up the can of worms. Durkin has never been a fire-breather on this issue, but the feminazi's who back Durbin sure are.

>> Keep in mind that McCain's primary campaign was more or less finished already. <<

Well, ya know, it was sort of an odd situation. The Illinois primary was precisely one week after Bush managed to pick up enough delegates to "ensure" his nomination. McCain hadn't conceded yet, and McCain & Keyes supporters in Illinois were pretty PO'ed at the national GOP for silencing them-- most of the votes cast were angry protest votes. Bush got 60% in the IL primary against McCain's 31% and Keyes' 9%. Although he handily beat McCain, it was deemed a fairly week showing at the time since he had the nomination "wrapped up" (Gore got over 80% in Illinois in the aftermath of Super Tuesday). Bush' 60% was deemed by some political scientists to mean the Illinois GOP was not united at it would hurt his Illinois campaign in November. Unfortunately, they were right.

I hope this doesn't repeat itself with Jim Ryan. We'll lucky that most Republicans are united on the Senate race, at least.