State Senator Chris Lauzen (R-Aurora) has a theory (“What the U.S. Senate Race Is Really About”) that is all too plausible in the context of Illinois politics: The state Republican leadership has bungled the selection of a replacement for Jack Ryan, because it doesn’t want to win.
Why would it be happy to throw away a Senate seat? The answer centers on the most important man in Illinois politics – not an elected official but U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald.
If you want to know who is really “changing Illinois politics as we know it” and “ending business as usual” in Springfield and Chicago, it sure isn’t Rod Blagojevich who already has four developing scandals by today’s count in just his first 18 months in office.
Instead, it is Federal Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald who aggressively investigates, indicts, convicts, and actually throws politicians and their cronies from both parties in jail! While we watch the self-destruction of an inexperienced governor trying to match wits with a razor-sharp, fiercely self-disciplined Speaker of the Statehouse from his own party, the real drama and progress in Illinois politics is the prosecution of those who have been caught in both parties . . . from Mickey Segal to George Ryan [ellipsis in original].
Traditionally the President follows the advice of the senior Senator or Representative of his own party in appointing U.S. attorneys. Mr. Fitzgerald was the choice of retiring Senator Peter Fitzgerald (no relation). If President Bush is reelected and there is no GOP Senator from Illinois, the decision about whether to keep or replace Patrick Fitzgerald will fall to House Speaker Dennis Hastert, who is unlikely to quarrel with state party leaders. Those leaders have made no secret of their dislike of the U.S. Attorney’s investigations, which have touched the Republican state chairman and other party insiders. If Jack Ryan had continued his Senate race and won, he would certainly have favored retaining Fitzgerald. Any other independent-minded Republican Senator will do the same.
The best scenario for the party leadership, on this hypothesis, would be the election of one of their cronies, but no electable crony has stepped forward. Second best is to fumble around until no viable candidacy is possible.
Senator Lauzen’s analysis of motives may be wrong. As the saying goes, Never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence. But the incompetence in this case has reached levels that stagger one’s capacity for belief and lend credibility to the alternative.
Comments