I was a kid during the whole Ross Perot phenomena, I didn't understand the whole "we need an unknown wealthy businessman to run our government" mentality and I don't understand it now. How'd that work out for other states? Jon Corzine was "enormously successful in the private sector" too. Still, I was a Forbes supporter in H.S. (how's that for supporting a "wealthy outsider"?), but in hindsight now that I know how elections work I realize he'd never get elected dog catcher. But Forbes geeky persona and humble interviews were alot more enduring than Adam Andrejewski. I've meet the guy twice in person -- he was very cocky and pushy, and he kept insisting on getting my contact info. and having me sign up for his campaign ASAP because otherwise I'd miss out on this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to "make history". I went away with a total "used car salesman" vibe from the guy. I come from a through middle class background -- my mom's a teacher, my dad is a retired cop. I'm a graphic designer and film critic. The no. #1 profession of politicians before they entered government is lawyer, and no. #2 is wealthy businessmen. Do we need more millionaire CEOs in government? I don't think so.
Even though I'm from the Chicago area I CAN understand the desire to give the other 80% of the state some representation in Illinois government. All the RAT candidates are from Chicago itself and all the GOP candidates are western suburbanites from the DuPage county area (home of GOP, Inc. in this state). That includes Adam, even though he grew up in Kankakee (it might be an hour's drive from Chicago, it's not considered "downstate" by people in central and southern Illinois -- just ask them). The thing about political unknowns with no track record is they're going to be the "best" on the issues because they can promise you ANYTHING and you can't dispute it. One of the things that bothers me about Adam is he seems to have make up facts about his bio that simply don't gel with historic facts.
A big talking point of his campaign is how he grew up in a great patriotic conservative family and his dad had the "courage" to "run as the conservative opposition to liberal Republican George Ryan when no else would". Now, let's research this claim and what actually happened. Adam's dad indeed ran for state rep. in 1978 -- as a Democrat. He didn't run "against" George Ryan, because at that time we still had our unusual "preferential voting system" that gave Illinois three state reps. per district, so Adam's dad was a Democrat in a majority Republican area, running to take out any and all Republicans in Kankankee. Third, read up on history and you'll find out George Ryan was a BELOVED conservative icon in this state during that era. As speaker of the House, he had just received endless allocates and praise from the conservative base and Phyllis Scafley for killing the ERA amendment when most Republicans didn't have the guts to, and its death in Illinois derailed it nationwide. NOBODY would have dared called George Ryan a RINO back then and "challenged him from the right". It wasn't until George went to statewide office in the 80s that he he got assimilated by the Thompson crowd and drifting leftward, until he became a total DIABLO scum in the late 90s. Finally, even in the 70s, Kankakee was a very traditional conservative Republican area. There were some pre-Reagan "conservative Democrat" regions of the nation in the 70s, Kankakee wasn't one of them. It was a historically GOP stronghold in northern Illinois and the RAT minority there was mainly supported by big labor and other left-wing groups. Running as a RAT if you wanted to be the "more conservative" candidate simply made no sense.
Maybe Adam's family was working class and leaned towards Democrat policies until the Reagan revolution made them see the light, but that's not the way he tells the story. He uses it boost his "true conservative" credentials. And if he's not being honest about that, what else is he telling the truth about? There's no way to know. He seems to be on our side but we'll never know unless take a big gamble and elect him. And I personally know a conservative activist who signed up for Adam's campaign and was gung-ho to elect him until incidents like that caused him to resign from the campaign.
Maybe Adam will pull off a miracle on Tuesday but this post on FR is the only place where I've seen it reported that he's suddenly surged "with two points". It's not being posted on Illinois Review, which is choke full of Adam supporters. He may finish above Dan Proft on Tuesday though, which I find unfortunate as I think Proft is the superior conservative candidate of the two.
We'll see in two days I guess.
On a related note, I'm glad Illinois doesn't allow primary campaign losers to run again in the general election. Although I'd be 100% willing to support guys like Adam or Pat Hughes if they win the nomination, I cringe at the thought of them pulling a Joe Lieberman style "our campaign must continue" if they get their butts kicked by a RINO on Tuesday. Narrowly losing the primary, might entitle a candidate to a do-over in November, but not losing by 20+ points.
Thanks for all the background in your post #49. I attended a live debate, watched the televised debate and listened to the debate on WLS radio. I’m voting for Proft as well. Dan and Adam both seem like good conservatives but my gut tells me Dan has what it will take to work with (or should I say against?) the entrenched people in Springfield. And I am also uncomfortable with the EO’s. Hughes has my vote for Senate.
Thanks for the info. This is definitely one to watch.