August 1, 2007
BENCHMARK, TIMETABLE WON'T BEAT DURBIN IN '08
ANALYSIS & OPINION BY RUSS STEWART
Republicans in Washington and Illinois are not averse to setting benchmarks, timetables and deadlines -- as long as they apply to the roundly detested U.S. Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and not to the Iraq War.
However, Durbin, Illinois' unctuous senior senator, occupies a thoroughly safe seat in a thoroughly blue state. He is up for re-election in 2008, and he has $6,050,000 in his campaign account. A Democrat has won eight of the past nine U.S. Senate elections in the state, and Durbin was elected in 1996 by 655,204 votes, with 56.1 percent of the votes cast, and re-elected in 2002 by 778,063 votes (60.3 percent).
But Republicans, perhaps in the throes of delusion, smell an upset. According to national polls, Congress is held in lower esteem than President Bush, with an approval rating hovering around 25 percent and a disapproval rating of 65 percent. This affects Durbin because he is the Senate's majority whip and the number two Democrat in the chamber. It is his job to deliver the 51-49 Democratic majority on key votes, and he has not done his job well.
Republicans think that if they can hang Congress' unpopularity on Durbin and field and fund a credible challenger, and if Durbin keeps stepping on his tongue, he is beatable. Just recently, during the Senate's all-night "debate" on Iraq, Durbin's lack of profundity was evident: He called the war a "life-or-death" situation, belaboring the obvious, and said that senators should spend a sleepless night because "how many sleepless nights have our soldiers and their families spent?"
Such inane comments infuriate the Republicans. If there is one senator that they would love to bind and gag with duct tape and toss into the Potomac River, it is Durbin.
During the 2006 campaign, both Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi promised that Democrats were "prepared to govern and ready to lead." With a Democratic sweep, Reid became Senate majority leader and Pelosi became House speaker. Pelosi promised to enact the Democratic agenda within 100 days, which included ethics and lobbying reform, immigration reform, Iraq withdrawal timelines, 9/11 commission recommendations and an energy policy to fight rising gas prices. So far, 200 days into 2007, the only House accomplishments have been raising the minimum wage and passing continuing appropriations for fiscal 2008.
The Senate, run by Reid and Durbin, has been even more dilatory, enacting only the minimum wage bill and no appropriations. A government shutdown looms if they don't act soon. The Iraq War funding bill passed, with a March 2008 timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops, but that will be vetoed, and 60 votes are needed for an override. On the immigration bill, which grants amnesty to 12 million undocumented immigrants, 15 Democrats voted in opposition, and the bill lost 53-47.
Reid snidely said Democrats have "done their job" and blamed the Republicans for the bill's defeat. But wasn't it Durbin's job to deliver Democratic votes for a bill backed by the Democratic leadership?
Republicans are already gleefully deriding the Democratic-controlled 110th Congress as a "do nothing" entity. Reid concedes that there have been "hurdles" and says that he needs more time. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the House Democratic Campaign Committee, has been quoted as blaming Senate Republicans for the impasse. "People are frustrated that Congress hasn't made significant changes," Van Hollen said. The House has sent 240 bills to the Senate, and few have passed. It won't be long before House Democrats start blaming Senate Democrats.
As for the Republicans, their "benchmark" is to find a Durbin foe. Two viable candidates have emerged: Hinsdale businessman Jim Nalepa, a West Point graduate and a retired Army officer who lost congressional bids to Bill Lipinski in 1994 and 1996, and LaGrange physician Steve Sauerberg. In his announcement, Sauerberg ripped Durbin for his "out-of-touch liberal values." According to conservative sources, both pro-life and veterans' groups are coalescing behind Nalepa. If Nalepa can access the mailing list of the "Swift Boat" veterans -- meaning the group of Vietnam veterans who tried to discredit John Kerry in 2004 -- he could conceivably raise $1 million.
The next step is a fund-raising deadline. It will take at least $4 million to beat Durbin. While congressional approval is plummeting, Democratic fund-raising is soaring. Through June 30 the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee raised $22.7 million and had $15.2 million cash on hand; the Republicans raised $20.9 million, with $8 million on hand.
With 34 Senate seats up in 2008, and 22 held by Republicans, it is implausible that the party will dump major money into Illinois.
And, finally, there's the timetable: Nominate Nalepa, fund Nalepa, and then orchestrate Nalepa's campaign. The tag line will be: "Congress is the problem, and Dick Durbin is part of the problem." The clincher will be: "Dick Durbin is an inept leader, an unreliable senator, and undeserving of another term."
Even so, Durbin has huge advantages going into 2008. First, Illinois has voted for the Democratic presidential candidate in every election since 1992. Bill Clinton won by 719,254 votes in 1992, getting 48.6 percent of the votes cast, and by 754,723 votes in 1996 (54.3 percent). Al Gore won by 569,605 votes in 2000 (54.6 percent), and John Kerry won by 545,604 votes in 2004 (54.8 percent). The 2008 Democratic presidential nominee will win Illinois by at least 500,000 votes, and those who vote Democratic for president will vote for Durbin.
Second, if Illinois Senator Barack Obama is on the 2008 ticket, the black vote will be huge. In order to win statewide, a Republican must win Downstate and the Collar Counties by more than 400,000 votes and keep the Democrats' margin in Cook County under that figure. Durbin won Cook County in 1996 by 664,461 votes and in 2002 by 587,898 votes. He can expect to win the county in 2008 by at least 600,000 votes.
Third, with $6 million on hand and with the capacity to raise double that amount, Durbin can replicate Rod Blagojevich's 2006 campaign: He can demonize his Republican foe as a right-wing, pro-gun, anti-abortion "extremist" and portray himself as "good for Illinois."
And fourth, Durbin, though not beloved, is a known commodity. He will win unless his Republican foe has the money to assail and besmirch his reputation.
My prediction: Durbin will win his third term easily.
As detailed in the adjoining vote chart, Durbin and Obama are veritable "Bobbsey Twins" on every key issue, voting liberal and anti-Bush. Even though Obama is busily running for president, he has not neglected Senate business, rarely being absent.