The Contenders for LaHood's Seat [UPDATED]
By Erick Posted in 2008 — Comments (9) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
As the Politico reports, with Ray LaHood set to retire the Illinois GOP is looking for a candidate. The 18th Congressional District has been in Republican hands since 1917 and voted for Bush with 58% in 2004.
The most likely candidate for LaHood's seat is only 26 years old. His name is Aaron Schock
From the Politico:
Among Republicans, all eyes will be on 26-year-old state Rep. Aaron Schock, who unseated a Democratic state legislator in 2004 and has been a rising star within the party ever since. He raised over $1 million for his last state legislative campaign, much of it from individual donors in the Peoria area.
[UPDATE:] Question: Do we really want a 26 year old who's legislative claim to fame is a resolution demanding a uniform minimum wage across the nation?
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Ted Stevens Can Suck Eggs — Comments (31) »
The Contenders for LaHood's Seat [UPDATED] 9 Comments (0 topical, 9 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
conservative than LaHood.
Ray LaHood is a moderate with conservative leanings. He sometimes votes differently than the most conservative of our congressmen, but when he votes against us he's usually got good reasons for his vote. And best of all, there's never been a hint of any scandal around him. I'd prefer he were a little more conservative but he's basically a good guy to have on our side.
Schock is different. I'm not sure he fits into the conservative camp or something else.
He's solidly pro-life. That was one area the Dems tried to attack him on and he stood firm.
He's mostly fiscally conservative, but is willing to support government spending on some populist programs.
The one area where I'm not real sure about him is in free market and government regulations. He was one of the leaders in my area in calling for electricity price controls after a large price increase when a 10 year price freeze expired. This may have been a political play, but I think this is how he would vote anyway.
Some things I see on the plus side.
1. He's well liked. The only people who seem to dislike him are the strong pro-aborts. He served as president of the bigest school board in the area and got it on a good fiscal track (it finally went back in the black this year). The school board members are mostly vocal supporters.
2. He's got good support in the poor and minority areas of Peoria. This is VERY unusual for a Republican. I spend a lot of time in the poorest area of Peoria and I saw FAR more yard signs for him than for the Dem. This is a strong plus.
3. He gets good positive press coverage. He's the "boy wonder" being the youngest school board member ever, let alone predsident and actually doing a great job was a good story. Being the youngest state rep and actually doing a good job (though he's playing in a tougher arena and has less influence) is another good story.
4. He's got good communication skills. This is something many of our candidates lack.
5. He seems to run a good local campaign. I assume he'd also run a good congressional campaign, but if he gets targetted by the DNC he'd need some real help.
Negatives:
1. He's YOUNG. He's been able to overcome the "youth and inexperience" charges in every other campaign and he's got a bit of experience despite his youth.
2. He has some populist leanings. This may actually help him in an area with a large UAW base, but those guys usually go solidly Dem no matter what the Repulican says.
Overall, I like the guy and would support him if he ran. In fact, if they don't blow it, he could be the Republican Obama.
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
LaHood was one of three GOP congressmen not to sign the contract with America so I think that it will harder to get a guy who is less conservative or at least has less vision than LaHood.
Do we want a guy who can raise a ton of cash and is a go getter?
I do. Any seat we can hold in Illinois is great and if this guy is as driven as the article seems to say, he could be the type who might have a shot at the senate in another 10 years.
move me to the Ill state and fun me. i'll knock on every door before election day at least once and i would win as my campaign platform wins with the majority every time:
1. complete the fence.
2. put troops on the border until the fence is complete.
3. no amnesty.
4. hold spending to the rate of inflation.
5. allow military to do what it needs to, to win in iraq.
sounds as if he's already "growing" in office. Electricity price controls? A uniform national minimum wage? That does not sound conservative to me. We can do a lot better and should encourage a principled conservative to step up.
Also, it would be a highly unusual 26 year old who is ready to serve in Congress. The whole point of representative government is to achieve wisdom in deliberation and, ultimately, sound laws. He does not sound ready. In fact, his early start in politics may have impaired permanently his ability to stand for limited government. If you look at our best legislators, they have done other things before seeking public office.
This is a perfect case to test whether the blogosphere can upset the "business as usual" approach of the parties to candidate selection. I will be fascinated to see if another candidate with greater capabilities and more conservative outlook seeks out support at red state.
Keep in mind that our best long term prospects currently in Congress -- Paul Ryan, Bobby Jindal, and Adam Putman, all did "very little" in the private sector before running for office. So while I see where you are coming from, lack of private sector experience is not necessarily a slam dunk negative.
I had never heard of this Schock guy. He sounds like someone who will be a serious player for a long time. God knows Illinois needs a Republican with a future....
I wasn't restricting experience to just the private sector. Jindal had been a Rhodes Scholar, an official in HHS and a university president. Ryan had worked in the private sector and had been Brownback's legislative director. Both had considerable achievements before seeking elective office. Show me a young candidate with really strong experience, and I would be very supportive.
I just think we can do better than Schock.
26 years is plenty old. We need more 20 somethings in Congress anyway. The guys with "experience" in Washington are ruining this country.
The problem is this guy's ideology.
I've been a major supporter of Bobby's since well before he first ran for office in 2003. But your list of his previous jobs are all government ;-) Paul Ryan too, except for some work at Jack Kemp's think tank and summers with the family trucking company. And Adam Putnam was first elected to the Florida House when he was 21. But all these guys have very bright, dare I suggest "national," futures.
I hear you on the importance of private sector experience. It matters a lot. I just see less correlation between that and being a reliable conservative in Congress. There was a study a few years back however that showed there is indeed a relationship between how long a Member has been in Congress and their affinity for spending taxpayer money. You guessed, the longer they're in, the more they spend. See: Byrd, Robert and Stevens, Ted.
Reagan, you can't possibly be more than 24 if you think 26 is plenty old (I say that with jealously, not spite:)
Pulled off a major upset and is more of a conservative than LaHood.
Pleased, I am.
George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.