With our fingers crossed, Oberweis to replace Hastert

Either Republican Jim Oberweis or Democrat Bill Foster might make a good congressman. And either might just as easily be a disaster.

Neither will be anything like the man one of them will replace in the 14th U.S. House District after Saturday's special election.

Dennis Hastert was decidedly of the people, a middle-class guy with middle-class values and a real familiarity with the problems of the average voter. Moderation, at least until he was engulfed in the partisan rancor of the era at the end of his career, was his watchword, and the way he voted, spoke and thought.

Oberweis and Foster are both rich men, successful businessmen largely unfamiliar with the intrusiveness and give-and-take of public governance. And neither has anywhere near the understanding of the average constituent's day-to-day problems that Hastert did. Thus, we can only hope whoever wins will put listening closely to constituents, not party hacks, at the top of the priority list if they truly want to act for the people.

Our nod goes to Oberweis because he could explain and support his views far better than did Foster, and because his views seem more aligned with this longtime Republican district.

But we don't consider either man particularly representative of the district, at least not in their campaign incarnations. When viewed as men and not candidates, neither strikes us as particularly extreme. But as candidates, both seem more reflective of their parties, which are in the hands of extremists these days, not pragmatists.

One good example can be found in the area of health care. Oberweis, as he does in many areas, believes a free market sans government is the best solution for the nation's ever more expensive and inaccessible health care system. But given how entwined the government is via Medicare, Medicaid and children's health programs, its seems unlikely the two will ever be fully disengaged. But Foster's advocacy of government-run national health care is just as unrealistic given Americans' reluctance to turn over their medical decisions to bureaucrats and pay the exorbitant costs that have been created by every similar program across the globe.

Neither man, then, represents moderation or the average guy, at least not until pushed into it. In our editorial board interview last week, both agreed, only after being prodded, that they would support negotiation of drug prices now banned under Medicare Part D legislation and allow re-importation of drugs.

Those positions are supported by the populace, unpopular with drug companies -- and not part of either man's campaign rhetoric. That has been reduced to "gotcha" cheap shots with the late involvement of the national parties, which have unleashed a barrage of ads off-putting to 14th District voters of every ilk.

A similar scenario plays out on the war in Iraq, where Oberweis seems content to stay on indefinitely and Foster would pull out, worrying only about troop safety and having little regard for the mess we leave behind. Neither, in our view, represents the American majority.

On illegal immigration, the two agree on better border enforcement and more aggressive enforcement of employment laws, the prevailing view in nearly every national poll. After that they diverge, but Americans seem disinclined to engage in discussion about what comes later until the first two are reality anyway.

In the end, our choice of Oberweis is based on the fact that he better represents a moderate to conservative district, and has grown into a more responsive and less confrontational candidate. And he did a far better job of explaining and supporting his positions than did Foster, who projected less certainty, less clarity and less confidence than he did before the primary.

So it's Oberweis with our fingers crossed, and the knowledge that we can review the choice again. The winner of this election serves out Hastert's unfinished term until January 2009 and faces re-election in November.