Friday, September 30, 2005

Edgar: Four More Years!

Essentially, Jim Edgar endorsed Rod's re-election campaign. By dithering for three months, he froze every other GOP campaign and put them all at a disadvantage. Since he isn't willing to run, and he did not endorse anyone, he perpetuated the vacuum, leaving Dems looking better for 06. Good news for Blue America today.


Anonymous said...

i think this is LT good for IL.

Rod is the result of non-competitive processes. This is not good - Republican or Democrat.

The state of IL needs new people to emerge.

If smart people are bugs, Rod is bug spray (somewhat similar to Bush).

Anonymous said...

Gov Edgar is captive to big money interests in the city of Chicago, the same interests which will keep a flat 3% tax in IL. Come on Dan- if you are a "progressive", how can you be for this?

Edgar can't earn a big-time living in the private sector unless he uses politicing to appease big money interests in chicago.

Anonymous said...

I read the Tribune's article on this.

In time, this will further the slide of the Chicago Tribune into becoming a worthless newspaper relative to other newspapers.

Anonymous said...

More on Edgar:

The Tribune article in the Oct 1 2005 Tribune ends with the following:

"But on Friday, Edgar made it clear he had made his last forway into elective politics. He said it was difficult to balance 'the personal duties' to his family with the need for leadership in a state that he said was in the throes of a fiscal crisis."

My Newsflash: there was no balancing act. It is both better for IL, and Edgar's family, if he takes time off from IL govt leadership. Phew, no Edgar. Thank goodness. I would rather have Gov B at this point than Edgar (even though Gov B is pretty unattractive). A lot of Republicans may also be thinking the same thing.

Furthermore, there is no fiscal crisis in IL. Edgar is wrong. He is so wrong he should be chastized in the media. We are not even close to crisis. Such language is dangerous because it could become self-fulfilling. We have a very low tax rate relative to other sophisticated states such as CA for NY. Given recent federal income tax rate decreases, IL could easily nudge the state income tax rate higher and balance things easily yet not discourage successful people. In addition, IL has grown its population significantly in the 1990s compared to the 1980s (see data at wiki link at end of this posting); even given this population increase, IL has weathered the recent downturn perhaps better than the recession of the early 1980s (although life is probably pretty miserable for some folk in IL who suffered during recent economic turbulence).

Edgar and his "leadership" is not going to fix the current situation. He does not have the expertise IL needs. I am all for forgiveness and putting people to work. If Edgar takes some business courses and passes objective examination processes, he might be rehabbed and perhaps we can listen to what he says (we have multiple exec ed programs in chicago). If not, I am not sure he knows his right hand from his left when it comes to business and numbers (see IllinoisLeader article at the end of this). Until he demonstrates this ability, we should politely listen and then verify anything the guy says. Apologies if this is a little too direct or blunt or irreverent-

We do have corporate governance and "creative destruction" (see Schumpeter) opportunities in IL, as highlighted by Kemper Insurance (see article illinoisleader URL at end of this - read Parts I and II).

Apologies for the long posting, but this hits a nerve for me.

Anonymous said...

"foray" not "forway"

We need the wealthy and successful in IL to use their wealth to create new jobs and business.

We may need more resources for grade school education (not sure). The state university system needs to be maintained and enhanced.

We need smart people involved in govt-

Anonymous said...

One more: IL needs to enhance medical education in the state. If IL does not act, IL will lose good people to states that are acting on this (AZ). This might include support or grants for public or private universities in the state. It also might include major investment in facilities and staff in the state university system. If you think healthcare is too big a % of GDP, we could do research on how to lower this.

respectful said...

A-Rod opposes the tax hike in the name of school funding reform, while Edgar supported it. Unless Dan knows of some indication that A-Rod will dispense with his pledge in the second term, then how is re-electing A-Rod better than Edgar for blue American values?

Anonymous said...

Rod is not good for blue people, or progressives. Dan knows it. The schools in Sandoval's district might get more money with a new gov. College students might have lower tuition increases, higher quality education, and smaller student loans with a new governor. No big deal.

Kadner had an interesting article. The one quibble might be that the Jesse White comparison might prove to be difficult for Edgar (depends on White does when he moves on from Sec of State).

Edgar lost a lot of credibility on Kemper. He should have taught college or something instead of trying to be something he was not.