“I felt this thrill going up my leg. I don’t have that too often.” –Chris Matthews after hearing an Obama speech.
Hat tip: LA Times.
Category Archives: 2008 Campaign
Darin LaHood touting campaign successes
From a press release:
LaHood Continues Momentum with $212,000 Raised to Date
Challenger for State’s Attorney leads in contributions and support from law enforcementPeoria, IL – With a significant cash advantage and unanimous support from the Peoria County law enforcement community, Darin LaHood’s bid to unseat a 20-year incumbent State’s Attorney continues to gain momentum.
“We’ve had an amazing number of individual, local donors contribute to our campaign,” said LaHood. “People realize that Peoria County has the highest crime rate in the State during the past five years and that is simply not acceptable. We’ve got to do something to reverse this trend and voting for a change in the State’s Attorney’s office is a start. I’ve sought input from local law enforcement, kept an open ear to all of the neighborhood groups, and bring to the table solid prosecutorial experience. I believe I am the right candidate for this job and I sincerely thank all those supporting my campaign.”
In his semi-annual financial report filed with the State Board of Elections this week, LaHood’s campaign shows over $212,000 raised to date, with $113,000 remaining on hand. More than 750 individual donors have contributed to the LaHood campaign since he announced his candidacy in October 2007.
Darin LaHood’s proven ability to effectively raise money for his campaign has been bolstered by his prowess in earning powerful support from the law enforcement community. For the last several weeks, police unions from various departments throughout the County have publicly issued endorsements of LaHood’s candidacy including the City of Peoria Police Department, the Peoria County Sheriff’s Department, the Chillicothe Police Department and most recently, the Bartonville Police Department. Law enforcement officials collectively say the present State’s Attorney’s office is ‘disconnected and it is time for a change.’
“We’re going to keep working straight through Election Day,” proclaimed LaHood. “Public safety in our County is at stake and the voters realize that. It’s going to take a lot of money to unseat an entrenched incumbent, but it will also take a strong message of change to convince people to vote differently than they have in the past. My supporters are lining up and we look forward to victory in November.”
Darin LaHood, 40, was born and raised in Peoria. He is a former federal prosecutor who served four years with U.S. Department of Justice in Las Vegas, Nevada. LaHood was also an Assistant State’s Attorney in both Tazewell and Cook counties. LaHood and his wife Kristen returned home to Peoria in 2005 to raise their three children: McKay, Luke, and Teddy. LaHood currently practices law with the firm of Miller, Hall, & Triggs. Darin and Kristen are active in numerous Peoria charity and civic organizations and are members of St. Vincent de Paul Church. Visit www.DarinLaHood.com to learn more about the candidate, volunteer opportunities, or to contribute to the campaign.
Perhaps the biggest vote this November
The campaign is heating up now. No, not the presidential race. I’m talking about the battle over whether Illinois should have a constitutional convention, or “con-con.” Organizations and coalitions are forming, and we can expect to see political ads from both sides.
Yes
On the “yes” side, there’s a couple of groups I’ve found. One is called United Power for Action and Justice, which has a site advocating a con-con. Then there’s Yes for Illinois, an effort of the nonpartisan Illinois Citizens Coalition (ICC). Here is an episode of the Illinois Issues Forum where ICC founder Bruno Behrend explains why he’s a proponent of having a con-con, and refutes the arguments of opponents:
No
On the other side, we have the Alliance to Protect the Illinois Constitution. They apparently don’t have a website yet, but I expect they will soon. According to the State Journal-Register (Springfield), “the alliance expects to spend about $3 million getting its message out to voters.” Their message?
Members of the new Alliance to Protect the Illinois Constitution say that convening a constitutional convention in 2010 would cost an estimated $100 million or more and would do little to solve state government’s problems. The real solution, they said, is to elect better leaders.
And just who is part of this alliance?
Members of the alliance include the Illinois Business Roundtable, Illinois AFL-CIO, Illinois Chamber of Commerce, Illinois Retail Merchants Association, Illinois Trial Lawyers Association and League of Women Voters of Illinois.
My Take
I’m for a con-con. I think it would be worth the money and the risk. The biggest surprise to me in that list of alliance members is the League of Women Voters. They have long decried the gerrymandering of Illinois’ voting districts. How are the people of Illinois supposed to “elect better leaders” when lawmakers choose their voters through gerrymandering? Or when Illinois limits ballot access to third party candidates? It’s naive to think that these problems can be rectified by anything less than a constitutional convention.
Interestingly, Presidential candidate Barack Obama is getting some heat over this issue. The Chicago Sun-Times columnist Carol Martin reports that Obama’s chief strategist David Axelrod is lending the aid of his public relations firm to opponents of a con-con. Martin quotes this letter from United Power for Action and Justice to Obama:
“Our nonpartisan organization . . . was surprised to learn that David Axelrod’s public relations firm has negotiated a contract of at least $2 million to lead a campaign against the state’s best chance for change in 20 years — the upcoming referendum on whether or not the citizens of Illinois should call a constitutional convention to deal with the mess in Springfield. While your campaign manager is heading a presidential effort whose slogan is “Change you can believe in,” his firm is running a local campaign whose slogan should read, “Change we must fear and undermine.”
But then, cognitive dissonance doesn’t appear to be a problem for Obama, as his multiple flip-flops on issues show.
There appears to be a big disparity in money. Opponents have $3 million to spend convincing Illinoisans to vote against a con-con. I can’t find any figures on the two proponent organizations, but they don’t appear to have a lot of money. But they do have the Illinois legislature and governor on their side. Oh, not explicitly, of course. I just mean that as long as they keep displaying their dysfunctional and embarrassing antics down in Springfield, it only serves to stoke the fires of voter discontent. Maybe legislators can choose their voters, but the con-con vote crosses district lines.
A new urban look at McCain and Obama
The Congress for the New Urbanism has published a summary of the presidential candidates’ stances on issues regarding new urbanism and sustainability. They looked at the candidates’ websites, voting records, news sites, and position papers to come up with as much information as they could gather. So far, Obama is the only candidate that has really addressed those issues at all, other than the issue of climate change, on which McCain has weighed in.
The biggest difference between the two candidates in this area, based on available information, is regarding Amtrak funding. McCain wants to cut all funding for Amtrak. Obama, in contrast, was a cosponsor of the Passenger Rail Investment and Innovation Act of 2007 which continues support for Amtrak. He also supports the development of high-speed freight and passenger rail.
From the archives: “How to write a political ad”
Since we’re entering campaign season in earnest now (only five months until the big election), I thought it might be a good time to reprint one of my favorite posts from the first year of my blog. It references the gubernatorial election from that time, but is generally applicable to any election. Enjoy.
“How to write a political ad,” from The Peoria Chronicle, 2/16/2006:
I’ve been watching the ads on TV being run by Illinois gubernatorial candidates, and I think I’ve figured out what it takes to write good copy for these things:
- Be as vague as possible. Problems are complex, and people have short attention spans, so steer clear of anything resembling a specific suggestion. In fact, if you can get away with saying only, “Me good, them bad,” just leave it at that.
- Passionately embrace outcomes only a comic-book villain would oppose. For instance, say you’re for “better schools,” “balancing the budget,” and “clean water.” This will set you apart from the other candidates who, I assume, are the Joker and the Riddler.
- Remember, a picture says a thousand lies. Show lots of pictures of yourself spending quality time with your family; that will give your family something to watch while you’re out on the road the next several months shilling for campaign contributions and brokering endorsement deals. And be sure to include the election-winning illusion that you’re spending your mornings in public schools reading to children because you’ve devoted your life to volunteerism.
- Attack your opponent’s record — but more importantly, attack his motives. It’s much easier to win against a corrupt political insider with lust for power than someone who’s simply pursuing a different path to the same goals as you. When talking about your opponent(s), always be sure to show unflattering pictures of them in black and white with an ominous musical underscore. Cynicism and ad hominem attacks are the road to victory.
- Finally, point people to your website, which has the same empty rhetoric as your political ad. This is where you can really put your doublespeak skills to work. An actual, complete quote from one candidate’s website explaining her commitment to leadership: “In every area of State government and especially in the Governor’s office, this State’s high standing for competence and leadership has suffered during the last three years.” The funny thing? This candidate works in state government.
And everyone wonders why voter turnout is so low.
Callahan a candidate in search of an issue
I think my readers know that I’m no fan of Aaron Schock. But seriously, is this the best his Democratic challenger can do?
Congressional candidate Colleen Callahan is criticizing her opponent Aaron Schock for spending too much time fundraising, being “AWOL” and not responding to issues.
Apparently, Callahan cut-and-pasted Karen McDonald’s “Word on the Street” column onto her campaign letterhead and faxed it out as a press release. And then McDonald dutifully reported on it. Talk about a “news cycle.”
Well, I guess it’s a win-win for Callahan and McDonald. Callahan gets some free publicity, and McDonald got Schock to finally return her call.
Do we really need a speech on patriotism?
Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama gave a speech all about patriotism today. You can read it here.
My reaction: Who cares? Can we talk about something relevant?
Obama says at the outset that the topic of patriotism “is worth considering…because the question of who is – or is not – a patriot all too often poisons our political debates, in ways that divide us rather than bringing us together.” So, I take that to mean his audience is those who question his patriotism. Is that really a large percentage of the population? Because I thought the only ones questioning his patriotism were those who believed anything and everything forwarded to them via e-mail — you know, those phony Internet rumors that he’s a Muslim, that he took his oath of office on the Koran, that he doesn’t say the Pledge of Allegiance, etc. Are those people likely to hear this speech, let alone believe it? And other than those people, who’s questioning his patriotism?
All I know is, I’d rather hear some substantive debates between the two candidates on the issues facing our country — in fact, some of the issues that Obama brought up himself at the beginning of the speech:
…health care, jobs, energy, education, and retirement security… [and] values. How do we keep ourselves safe and secure while preserving our liberties? How do we restore trust in a government that seems increasingly removed from its people and dominated by special interests? How do we ensure that in an increasingly global economy, the winners maintain allegiance to the less fortunate? And how do we resolve our differences at a time of increasing diversity?
A debate on any of those subjects would be welcome. This election isn’t a contest over who’s more patriotic, so let’s skip the rhetorical, platitude-filled speeches and get down to the nitty-gritty. That would be much more interesting and useful.
Darin LaHood supports Supreme Court decision
Someone asked me what Kevin Lyons and Darin LaHood thought of the Supreme Court’s second-amendment ruling, so I asked them. So far, I’ve only received a response from LaHood; if and when I get a response from Lyons, I’ll post it as well. Here’s what Darin had to say:
I think it is a great victory for the law abiding citizens of our community and this Country. I have always believed that law abiding citizens have the right to defend themselves with a weapon and also have the right to go hunting with a weapon. This right is clearly articulated in the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution. I strongly support the Supreme Court’s decision.
My experience as a prosecutor is that strict enforcement and prosecution of convicted felons and criminals who use and possess weapons is the most effective way to reduce gun violence and violent crime. Having personally prosecuted hundreds of violent criminals who used and possessed weapons I know first hand the importance of combating gun violence while respecting the right of law abiding citizens to own guns. We don’t need more gun laws; we need better enforcement of existing gun laws to get guns out of the hands of criminals. The U.S. Department of Justice’s Project Safe Neighborhoods Program, which I spearheaded as a Federal Prosecutor, is a great example of how tough prosecution of felons, who possess weapons, can reduce criminal activity and take criminals off our streets.
Peoria Police endorse Darin LaHood
From a press release:
Peoria Police Overwhelmingly Endorse LaHood
Candidate for State’s Attorney gets another boost from the largest law enforcement agency in Peoria CountyPeoria, IL – Darin LaHood, candidate for Peoria County State’s Attorney, has earned yet another powerful endorsement from a local law enforcement group. On May 30th, the Peoria Police Benevolent Association Unit #27 (PPBA), which represents the Peoria Police Department and is the largest law enforcement agency in Peoria County, overwhelmingly voted to support LaHood over incumbent Kevin Lyons.
“Seventy-seven (77) of our members voted to endorse Darin and only four (4) voted to endorse Lyons” said Troy Skaggs, President of the Peoria Police Union #27; “The results speak for themselves and demonstrate our members’ strong desire for change in the State’s Attorney’s Office and a greater commitment to fight crime.” Skaggs further added “Darin’s energy and experience is exactly the change we need in the State’s Attorney’s Office; we are honored to endorse him and look forward to working with him.”
The PPBA endorsement follows last month’s announcement from the Peoria County Sheriff’s Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 157 that they are supporting LaHood in the November election as well. LaHood believes his commitment to collaboration and open communication with local law enforcement resonates with the departmental leadership and the rank and file officers at both the city and county levels.
“I am running for State’s Attorney because I believe we need a drastically different approach to how the current office deals with prosecuting crime, working with law enforcement, and working in a collaborative effort to solve our crime problems,” said LaHood. “For the last five years Peoria County has had the highest crime rate in Illinois. This is simply not acceptable. It’s apparent something is broken and badly needs repair in the State’s Attorney’s Office. We need a change!”
Darin LaHood, 39, was born and raised in Peoria. He is a former Chief Terrorism and Federal Prosecutor who served four years with the U.S. Department of Justice in Las Vegas, Nevada. LaHood was also an Assistant State’s Attorney in both Tazewell and Cook counties. LaHood and his wife, Kristen, returned home to Peoria in 2005 to raise their three children: McKay, Luke, and Teddy. LaHood currently practices with the Peoria law firm of Miller, Hall, & Triggs. Darin and Kristen are active in numerous Peoria charitable and civic organizations and are members of St. Vincent de Paul Church. Visit www.DarinLaHood.com to learn more about Darin, volunteer opportunities, or to contribute to the campaign.
Darin LaHood picks up another endorsement
From a press release:
Peoria County Sheriff’s Deputies Back Darin LaHood
FOP Union: LaHood is a ‘strong, viable candidate,’ nearly 70% of membership supporting himPeoria, IL – Indicating a change is needed with the current Peoria County State’s Attorney’s office, the Sheriff’s deputies local union in Peoria has overwhelmingly opted to support Darin LaHood for State’s Attorney in the November, 2008 election. In making this endorsement, the Union sends a clear signal that the incumbent of more than 20 years has lost touch with the County’s law enforcement sector.
In a letter dated May 20, 2008, President Blaine Duhs of the Peoria County Fraternal Order of Police Lodge #157 said; “The members of the bargaining unit for the Peoria County Sheriff’s [FOP] have taken a ballot vote with the results over 2/3 majority in favor of giving you our endorsement…you are a strong and viable candidate for State’s Attorney and we look forward to working with you…”
Union President Blaine Duhs added, ‘We are endorsing Darin because of his exceptional experience fighting crime, proven ability to work with others to keep our streets safe and commitment to law enforcement to be our partner in public safety. With the highest crime rate in the State during the past five years, Peoria County needs change and a new approach in the State’s Attorney’s Office. Darin LaHood is the right person to bring energy, new ideas and bold leadership to that office.’
“The support of a group of hard working law enforcement officers who battle the crime problem every day is a sign that my message of new leadership and change is being embraced by the public. The Sheriff’s deputies know that we can do better in the State’s Attorney’s Office,” said LaHood. “I am deeply honored to receive the endorsement of these law enforcement professionals.”
Darin LaHood, 39, was born and raised in Peoria. He is a former Chief Terrorism and Federal Prosecutor who served four years with the U.S. Department of Justice in Las Vegas, Nevada. LaHood was also an Assistant State’s Attorney in both Tazewell and Cook counties. LaHood and his wife, Kristen, returned home to Peoria in 2005 to raise their three children: McKay, Luke, and Teddy. LaHood currently practices with the Peoria law firm of Miller, Hall, & Triggs. Darin and Kristen are active in numerous Peoria charitable and civic organizations and are members of St. Vincent de Paul Church. Visit www.DarinLaHood.com to learn more about Darin, volunteer opportunities, or to contribute to the campaign.