Friday, April 7, 2006

Social Conservatives Shouldn’t be Hustled by Meeks

To those who say preacher-State Sen. James Meeks will be running for governor as a candidate of a third-party I respond: I don’t think so…but even if he does, social conservatives shouldn’t be hustled into his camp. This is a tussle with Blagojevich on the part of Meeks’ Jackson-based sponsors to control jobs and contracts at the Abraham Lincoln airport, with the likely result that Meeks will make out and not run.

The idea that social conservatives should flirt with Meeks is ridiculous. He claims to be pro-life: a little more about that in a minute. He wants a spectacular tax increase for education without looking at vouchers or getting tough with the teachers unions…and supports at the top of his lungs furtherance of a confiscatory gun policy. Social conservatives must remember that they go together as a political force in coalition: pro-life, pro-family, pro-2nd amendment, anti-tax hike. Cutting strings loose on 2nd amendment and anti-tax to go because he makes bleating sounds on pro-life, pro-family would be the greatest folly.

While Meeks is definitely anti-gay rights basis his church constituency which in the black community is hostile to this concept, there is no vote on pro-life in the legislature that would verify Meeks’ claim to be pro-life. Pro-lifers know he’s voted wrong on one key bill: the bill forcing insurance companies to pay for abortificients. His slender claim to be a pro-lifer is largely preacher-talk. I don’t think social conservatives should be fooled by Meeks. The Grand Coalition which carried more GOP primary votes than the Combine candidate for social conservatism would never get back together.

Not that if he did run, enough social conservatives will ever go with Meeks to make a difference. But blacks would likely, even certainly, turn out in record numbers. He could very well elect Topinka. But election of Topinka would be a greater disaster than the reelection of Blagojevich: in that social conservatives will have lost any chance to gain control over the Republican party. Cutting a deal with Meeks isn’t the answer; isn’t even part of the answer.

Incidentally, what’s with Big Foot columnist George Will, saying in his national column about Topinka that Blagojevich has the vote of the public employees’ unions? Doesn’t he know ASCME rejected him in the primary and is flirting with Meeks in order to put pressure on Blagojevich? That happens when national journalists—and Will is a very good commentator—get spread too thin. But George ought to at least read the Illinois clips.


  1. Lovie's LeatherApril 7, 2006 at 5:23 AM

    Tom, an endorsement for Blago? That's the way it looks. Wow... Roeser turning blue... never thought I would see the day...

  2. RINOs (Republicans in name only) do not deserve the vote.

    I am a paleo conservative and I voted for Glenn Poshard, a vote which looks better each and every day.

    I will be voting 3rd party this time around.

    Tom - Please say a few words here or on your show about the pathetic 5 month sentence handed down by Democratic Judge Moran on my (on Tom's)representative in congress whose convicted felon husband was caught kitting checks yet again.

    Maybe if Republicans ran conservatives and had a backbone (unlike Rove who threw conservative Pat Toomey to the wolves for his liberal Specter and no gives us Judy and Kjellander) and spent some money to defeat the Congresswoman and her convicted felon accomplise they would earn more respect as a party. They don't and thus are in the sorry state in Illinois and national. A party without principal is a party without voters.

    I won't vote for Blago but he is the lesser of two evils (4 years of evil or permanent combine evil).