After that infomercial for party Mandarin Andy McKenna, read about a genuine conservative who will be running in the primary.  The following is from a local newspaper political columnist recent piece.

“JUST SAY NO TO CHICAGO” IS BRADY’S 2010 MANTRA

ANALYSIS & OPINION BY RUSS STEWART

Illinois government is undeniably corrupt.  “Pay-to-play” flourishes.  Five of the state’s last eight governors have been indicted; and three convicted and imprisoned.  Rod Blagojevich will soon make it four.  Every lever of power in Illinois is controlled by a Chicago Democrat.

State Senator Bill Brady (R-44), of Bloomington, the frontrunner for the 2010 Republican nomination for governor, has a simple solution to all of Illinois’ ills:  Just say “No” to Chicago…and “No” to lawyers…and “No” to Democrats.

In short, argues Brady, don’t continue to let Chicagoans run Illinois.  Elect a Downstater as governor. Elect a Republican as governor.  Elect a non-lawyer as governor.  Restore some sense of balance.

“My polling shows that corruption, not the state’s fiscal crisis, is uppermost in voters’ minds,” said Brady.  “And corruption will not abate as long as a clique of Chicago Democratic lawyers continue to run Illinois.”

But Illinois’ Republican establishment, ever the dunce when it comes to spotting trends, it utterly paranoid about Brady.  They think he is too conservative to win, and is somehow a replication of the much-reviled Jim Oberweis.  Brady has an unabrasive, unobnoxious and longstanding record as a social conservative.  But the insiders’ fear is that Brady will be nominated, demonized, and defeated.

Brady, age 48, is a real estate broker, homebuilder, and state legislator, having served in the Illinois Senate since 2002, and in the Illinois House for 8 years.  He ran for governor in 2006, finishing third in the Republican primary, with 135,370 votes (18.4 percent), in a turnout of 751,627.  Of that number, 138,182 (18.4 percent) votes were cast in Chicago and Cook County, 283,475 (37.7 percent) in the five suburban collar counties, and 329,970 (43.9 percent) in the 95 Downstate counties.  The bulk of Brady’s vote (94,870) came from Downstate.  Judy Baar Topinka won with 280,701 votes (38.2 percent), and second-placer Oberweis had 233,576 votes (31.7 percent).  Of Oberweis’ vote, 90,704 came from Downstate.  The combined Oberweis-Brady vote was 370,946, or 50.2 of the total, and they also amassed a combined 185,574 Downstate vote, or 56.3 percent of the area’s total.

“I will get a significant majority of the Downstate vote,” predicted Brady, “and at least a third of the Chicago-area vote.  I will win.”  That translates into at least 300,000 votes, or just under 40 percent of the total cast.

Brady’s five prospective 2010 primary foes in the fluid primary now include State Senator Kirk Dillard (R-24), of Westmont, a former DuPage County Republican chairman; businessman Andy McKenna, a former state party chairman who got 97,238 votes (14.7 percent) in the 2004 U.S. Senate primary, finishing fourth; DuPage County Board chairman Bob Schillerstrom; businessman Adam Andrzejewski; and political consultant Dan Proft.  All are from Cook or the collar counties.  If they slice up that area’s 421,657 primary vote, then Brady wins.

State Senator Matt Murphy (R-27), of Palatine, who championed the secession of Cook County’s western townships after the sales tax hike, was briefly a gubernatorial candidate; but has withdrawn to run for lieutenant governor with McKenna.  That prompted State Representative Dave Winters (R-68) to opt out and run for re-election.  Murphy faces Carbondale Mayor Brad Cole and attorney Don Tracy in the primary.

“They’re all a bunch of nobodies,” said one Republican political consultant of the governor’s field. “They’re bland.  They’re boring.  They elicit no excitement.  But that doesn’t matter.  If voters don’t want a Democratic governor, then any Republican will win.”

Any election featuring an incumbent is a referendum on that incumbent.  And the recourse of a flawed incumbent is to attack and demonize his opponent, as Blagojevich did in 2006.  The disgraced Blagojevich raised and spent $17 million; to Topinka’s $8 million. We now know how and why Blagojevich was able to assemble that kind of dough.

In 2010, beleaguered Governor Pat Quinn (D) lacks both money and a message.  Quinn must persuade voters that he is not incompetent, not that his Republican foe is an extremist or cretin.  Quinn faces a primary against state Comptroller Dan Hynes (D), who will pummel Quinn’s stewardship. Expect Quinn to win, but not by much – 55 percent at best.  And, unlike Blagojevich, Quinn hasn’t mega-millions in his campaign fund, and will spend $2 million in the primary.  The 2010 election will be all about Quinn, and not about the Republican’s shortcomings.

National Republican strategists, especially the Republican Governor’s  Association (RGA), are anxiously monitoring the November governor’s races in Virginia and New Jersey, watching for a trend. In New Jersey, where corruption is endemic and epidemic, Democratic Governor Jon Corzine faces Chris Christie (R), a former U.S. Attorney.  Christie is focusing on corruption, avoiding fiscal and social issues.  In Virginia, former state attorney general Bob McDonnell’s (R) ancient college thesis on abortion has become an issue, and Democrat Creigh Deeds is attempting to portray his foe as an “extremist.”  If Republicans don’t win both races, it will be a bad omen for 2010.

Polling has been sporadic. A recent Dillard survey, which used push-polling techniques and identified Dillard as “Governor (Jim) Edgar’s former chief-of-staff,” gave Dillard 23 percent, to Brady’s 18 percent, with 3.8 percent for Andrzejewski, 2.4 percent for Proft, and 2.3 percent for Schillerstrom. Over 45 percent were undecided.

An earlier RGA poll had Brady leading the pack by 2-1, with about 30 percent.  That prompted an anxiety-attack among the Illinois Republican “establishment,” who are convinced that only a “moderate” Republican, in the vein of Jim Thompson, Jim Edgar and 2010 U.S. Senate hopeful Mark Kirk, can win statewide.

Here’s some early observations:

First, Brady is not a mean-and-angry conservative, like Oberweis. He does not want to roll back the clock, secede from reality, or deport immigrants.  He is articulate, optimistic and likeable.  He opposes any state income tax hike.  He wants to put caps on political contributions, cut the size of the Illinois Senate and House, restore multi-member districts, and limit donations to $2,400 from no-bid contractors.  “I’ve traveled the state for over five years,” said Brady.  “I may not be well-known in the Chicago media market, but I’m well-known Downstate.”  Brady said he expects to raise over $2 million for the primary.

Second, the hardcore conservatives, who are anti-abortion, anti-gun control, and anti-gay rights, are a major component of the Republican base.  In 1992, against President George Bush, Pat Buchanan got 186,915 votes (22.5 percent) in the Illinois presidential primary; in 1996, he got 186,177 votes (22.8 percent).  Oberweis sought statewide office three times: He got 259,515 votes (31.5 percent) in the 2002 U.S. Senate primary, finishing second in a turnout of 825,237; he got 155,794 votes (23.5 percent) in the 2004 U.S. Senate primary, finishing second in a turnout of 662,004; and he got 233,576 votes (31.7 percent) in the 2006 governor’s primary, finishing second in a turnout of 735,810.  That’s an average of 216,295 votes for Oberweis per primary – or roughly a third of the turnout.  Where will that vote gravitate in 2010? Oberweis, from Aurora, spent over $4 million of his personal resources in the three contests, targeting his base.  None of the 2010 Cook County candidates have that self-funding base, name recognition, or issue identification.  The bulk of the Oberweis vote, especially Downstate, will go to Brady.

Third, the DuPage County vote is fractured. The county cast 98,230 Republican primary votes in 2006, 86,993 in 2004, and 126,767 in 2002.  If both Dillard and Schillerstrom remain in the contest, they will split the 100,000-plus votes from their home turf.  To win, Dillard needs Schillerstrom to withdraw, needs Edgar’s endorsement, and needs 80 percent of the DuPage County vote.

Fourth, McKenna needs a rationale for his candidacy.  He is part of a clique of rich white guys who run the party, and he can drop $2 million of his own money into the race.  But he’s running as the “Stop Brady” candidate, and the only way to stop Brady is to go negative and blast Brady as another Oberweis-type loser.  McKenna’s base is in Cook County. His name recognition is minimal, as he demonstrated in his abysmal 2004 primary bid for senator, when he pulled 97,238 votes (14.7 percent).  He has no identification with statewide issues.  He needs to spend his money on a massive TV barrage, hyping himself as the “change” candidate.  He needs to do it soon, before Thanksgiving. And his votes come at the expense of Dillard, not Brady.

And fifth, the Republican “establishment” vote – primarily from DuPage and Lake counties, and the North Shore suburbs – is at least 350,000 in a statewide primary. In 2006, Topinka and Ron Gidwitz got a combined 360,769 votes.  But with Dillard, McKenna and Schillerstrom splitting that vote, none can win.

My early prediction:  Brady will be the Republican nominee.  And, absent any personal scandals, he will be Illinois’s next governor.

Greg Easterbrook is a research fellow at the liberal Brookings Institute. He writes an irreverent NFL football colmun for ESPN which includes divergences to other topics. Here is his take on the Wall Street situation:

Gasoline Plentiful, Perspective Scarce:

“Financial chaos is sweeping the world,” a New York Times lead story said last week. I didn’t notice any chaos in my part of the world — every business was open, ATMs were working, goods and services were plentiful. There are economic problems to be sure. But chaos? Collapse? Next Depression? Please, media and political worlds, let’s stop hyperventilating and show some perspective.
What is going on is a financial panic, not an economic collapse. Financial panics are no fun, especially for anyone who needs to cash out an asset right now for retirement, college and so on. But financial panics occur cyclically and are not necessarily devastating. The most recent financial panic was 1987, when the stock market fell 23 percent in a single day. Pundits and politicians instantly began talking about another Depression, about the “end of Wall Street.” The 1987 panic had zero lasting economic consequences — no recession began, and in less than two years, stocks had recouped all losses. (See John Gordon’s excellent 2004 book on the history of financial panics, “An Empire of Wealth.”) Perhaps a recession will be triggered by the current financial panic, but it may not necessarily be severe.

Politicians and pundits are competing to see who can act most panicked and use the most exaggerated claims about economic crisis — yet the fundamentals of the U.S. economy are, in fact, strong. Productivity is high; innovation is high; the workforce is robust and well-educated; unemployment is troubling at 6.1 percent, but nothing compared to the recent past, such as 11.8 percent unemployment in 1992; there are no shortages of resources, energy or goods. Here, University of Chicago economist Casey Mulligan shows that return on capital is historically high; high returns on capital are associated with strong economies. Some Americans have significant problems with mortgages, and credit availability for business could become an issue if the multiple bank-stabilizing plans in progress don’t work. But the likelihood is they will work. When the 1987 panic hit, people were afraid the economy would collapse; it didn’t. This panic is global, enlarging the risks. But there’s a good chance things will turn out fine.

Why has a credit-market problem expanded into a panic? One reason is the media and political systems are now programmed for panic mode. Everything’s a crisis! Crises, after all, keep people’s eyes glued to cable news shows, so the media have an interest in proclaiming crises. Crises make Washington seem more important, and can be used to justify giveaways to favored constituent groups, so Washington influence-peddlers have an interest in proclaiming crises.

An example of the exaggerated crisis claim is the assertion that Americans “lost” $2 trillion from their pension savings in the past month, while equities “lost” $8 trillion in value. “Investors Lose $8.4 Trillion of Wealth” read a Wall Street Journal headline last week. This confuses a loss with a decline. Unless you cashed out stocks or a 401(k) in the past month, you haven’t “lost” anything. Nor have most investors “lost” money, let alone $8.4 trillion — crisis-mongering is now so deeply ingrained in the media that even Wall Street Journal headline writers have forgotten basic economics.

People who because of financial need have no choice but to cash out stocks right now are really harmed. Anyone who simply holds his or her ground with stocks takes no loss and is likely, although of course not certain, to come out ahead in the end. During the housing price bubble of 2003 to 2006, many Americans became much better off on paper, but never actually sold their homes, so it was all paper gains. Right now many Americans holdings stocks or retirement plans are much worse off on paper, but will be fine so long as they don’t panic and sell. One of the distressing things about last week’s media cries of doomsday is that they surely caused some average people to sell stocks or 401(k)’s in panic, taking losses they might have avoided by simply doing nothing. The financial shout-shows on cable tend to advise people to buy when the market is rising, sell when the market is falling — the worst possible advice, and last week it was amplified by panic.

We’ve also fallen into panic because we pay way too much attention to stock prices. Ronald Reagan said, “Never confuse the stock market with the economy.” Almost everyone is now making exactly that mistake. The stock market is not a barometer of the economy; it is a barometer of what people think stocks are worth. These are entirely separate things. What people think stocks are worth now depends on their guess about what stocks will be worth in the future, which is unknowable. You can only guess, and thus optimism feeds optimism while pessimism feeds pessimism.

There is no way the American economy became 8 percent less valuable between breakfast and morning coffee break Friday, then became 3 percent more valuable at lunchtime (that is, improved by 11 percent), then became 3 percent less valuable by afternoon teatime (that is, declined by 6 percent) — to cite the actual Dow Jones Industrials swings from Friday. And the economy sure did not become 11 percent more valuable Monday. Such swings reflect panic or herd psychology, not the underlying economy, which changes over months and years, not single days. For the past few weeks pundits and Washington and London policy-makers have been staring at stock tickers as if they provided minute-by-minute readouts of economic health, which they do not. It’s embarrassing to see White House and administration officials seemingly so poorly schooled in economic theory they are obsessing over stock-price movements, which they cannot control and in the short term should not even care about.

Consider this. On Black Monday in 1987, the market fell 23 percent. If you had invested $100 in a Dow Jones Index fund the following day, it would be $460 now, a 275 percent increase adjusting for inflation. That’s after the big slide of the past month, and still excellent. So don’t panic, just hold your stocks. And if you’d invested $100 in real estate in 1987, it would be $240 today, a 30 percent increase adjusting for inflation. That’s after the housing price bubble burst. A 30 percent real gain in 20 years isn’t a great investment — until you consider that you lived in the house or condo during this time. To purchase and live in a dwelling, then come out ahead when you sell, is everyone’s dream. Not only do stocks remain a good buy, America on average is still coming out ahead on the housing dream. (This example uses the Case Shiller Index for the whole country; because housing markets are local, some homeowners have lost substantial ground while others enjoyed significant appreciation.)

Economic problems are likely to be with us for awhile, but also likely to be resolved — the 1987 panic and the 1997 Asian currency collapse both were repaired more quickly than predicted, with much less harm than forecast. Want to worry? Worry about the fact that the United States is borrowing, mainly from foreign investors and China, the money being used to fix our banks. The worse the national debt becomes — $11 trillion now, and increasing owing to Washington giveaways — the more the economy will soften over the long term. It’s long-term borrowing, not short-term Wall Street mood swings, that ought to worry us, because the point may be reached where we can no longer solve problems by borrowing our way out. This author’s former Brookings Institution colleague Peter Orszag, now director of the Congressional Budget Office, was on “Newshour” last week talking about the panic. Orszag is a wicked-smart economist — for instance, he is careful to say pension holdings have declined, not been lost like most pundits are saying, as if there were no difference between decline and loss! The below exchange occurred with host Jeffrey Brown. Remember these words:

PETER ORSZAG: One thing we need to remember is we’re lucky that we have the maneuvering room now to issue lots of additional Treasury securities and intervene aggressively to address this crisis.

JEFFREY BROWN: Wait a minute. Explain that. Lucky in what sense?

PETER ORSZAG: That people are still willing to lend to us. If in 20 or 30 years we continue on the same path, with rising health-care costs and rising budget deficits, we would reach a point where we wouldn’t have that ability.