Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: The US House’s plan for the states
Posted in:
* Via Progress Illinois, we have this Politico story…
Rep. Janice Schakowsky (D-Ill.) is open to running against Roland Burris in 2010, potentially setting up a contested Democratic primary for the scandal-tainted Illinois Senate seat.
Schakowsky, leaving the Burris swearing-in ceremony Thursday, told Politico that “time will tell” whether she’d run or not. Asked whether she was ruling a run in or out, she said, “No.”
Her husband did some prison time, she raised a bunch of money for Rod Blagojevich last year while she was actively campaigning for the US Senate appointment, her voting record makes Obama look like a right winger. But she’s beloved at home, and that sometimes skews congresscritters’ views of their statewide chances. Same goes for Mark Kirk, by the way.
* There’s also the gender thing…
How come Roland Burris has had such an easy time getting to the U.S. Senate while Caroline Kennedy has had such a hard time?
Could it be that the race card trumps the gender card in U.S. politics?
Well, yes. It could be.
Maybe. But Caroline Kennedy is getting whomped by NY AG Andrew Cuomo 40-25 in the latest poll.
And who the heck would write that Roland Burris had an “easy time” getting to the US Senate? Sure, he made it, but it wasn’t easy.
Still, it’s something for Schakowsky to consider. A primary challenge to Burris won’t be easy at all for her.
* Related…
* ‘It’s a dream of a lifetime’ : Closing a painful chapter for Senate Democratic leaders, an overjoyed Roland Burris was sworn in to the Senate Thursday by Vice President Dick Cheney.
* Roland Burris sworn in as Illinois’ junior senator
* Burris finally sworn in as Illinois’ junior senator
* Burris sworn in
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Jan 16, 09 @ 10:34 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: The US House’s plan for the states
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I think they will be lined up down the block to run against this lame duck old man who accepted this tainted appointment. I realize how the dem primary works but this is too easy and pols are too greedy. There is blood in the water around ole’ Roland.
Comment by Phineas J. Whoopee Friday, Jan 16, 09 @ 10:39 am
Love the talk about race card vs gender card and which trumps which. The best part is how qualifications are left completely out of the discussion.
Here’s a reason Cuomo may be whalloping Kennedy: Have you ever, like, seen her, like, try to, like, speak off the, um, cuff? Not, like, pretty.
Comment by BigDog Friday, Jan 16, 09 @ 10:41 am
I hope that Rep. Schakowsky will run for the U.S. Senate. If she does, St. Sen. Jeffrey Schoenberg should run for her U.S. House seat. His district includes Evanston, Skokie, and Rogers Park. He was elected to a four-year term, in 2008, so he could run for Congress, without giving up his legislative seat.
Comment by Phil Collins Friday, Jan 16, 09 @ 10:42 am
“Closing a painful chapter for Senate Democratic leaders, an overjoyed Roland Burris was sworn in to the Senate Thursday by Vice President Dick Cheney.”
I wonder if IL citizens/taxpayers believe that “…Roland Burris was sworn in to the Senate…” actually did result in “Closing a painful chapter for Senate Democratic leaders…”
Didn’t for me.
Comment by sal-says Friday, Jan 16, 09 @ 10:44 am
What a shame the Dems are. Repubs should have a hey day in 2010′.
Comment by Tunes Friday, Jan 16, 09 @ 10:46 am
Closing a painful chapter for Senate Democratic leaders, an overjoyed Roland Burris was sworn in to the Senate Thursday by Vice President Dick Cheney.
Believe that! It will make it easier for him to be defeated.
Jan? No. She would actually lose to Roland Burris. Jesse Jackson Jr. would beat Roland in the primary. Easily.
Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Jan 16, 09 @ 10:47 am
- Tunes - Friday, Jan 16, 09 @ 10:46 am:
What a shame the Dems are. Repubs should have a hey day in 2010′.
New to Illinois ?
Illinois repubs have a long and distinquished history of pulling defeat from the jaws of victory.
Comment by shermans ghost Friday, Jan 16, 09 @ 10:49 am
Van Man-who would win if it’s Jan, Roland and Jesse?
Comment by Phineas J. Whoopee Friday, Jan 16, 09 @ 10:49 am
===Repubs should have a hey day in 2010′.===
Maybe in Kansas but we’re not in Kansas anymore…
Comment by HoBoSkillet Friday, Jan 16, 09 @ 10:49 am
While Rep. Schakowsky is correct in that Roland will certainly be beatable in 2010, she may not be the person to do it for the reasons stated by Rich. I doubt she would play well south of I-80. There are plenty of Dems. with more moderate records and sufficient experience who have run statewide before who would certainly be favored to beat both her and Burris should they enter the race. I just don’t see her winning statewide.
Comment by Ron Burgundy Friday, Jan 16, 09 @ 10:51 am
HoBoSkillet and shermans ghost, let’s be fair. Tunes said “hey day,” not heyday. They may just say “hey” on that “day.”
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jan 16, 09 @ 10:52 am
BigDog, that interview was painful. Nice Ivy League education, too.
The only heat behind Caroline was Bloomberg and he’s a Republican (Manhattan style).
Her sense of entitlement has outraged Dem leaders there, and they’re not shy.
Note to Obama: I know she’s your ally now, but stay out of this one. Remember the last one?
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Jan 16, 09 @ 10:53 am
===I doubt she would play well south of I-80===
Forget I-80. She has to play south of Evanston.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jan 16, 09 @ 10:54 am
Race trumps gender? No way. Perhaps because like him or hate him, Burris has an actual political resume and has won campaigns, served the people in an official capacity and is more than a famous name. He is basically Barack Obama with more of an ego and more experience.
Kennedy is the daughter of some politician that people loved a lot (for some reason) THat is her resume
Comment by Wumpus Friday, Jan 16, 09 @ 10:55 am
“He is basically Barack Obama with more of an ego and more experience.”
I’m glad I read that before lunch.
Comment by Phineas J. Whoopee Friday, Jan 16, 09 @ 10:57 am
Jan could win the primary if (1) she’s the only woman in a crowded/semi-crowded field and (2) another strong african american throws their hat into the primary and splits the vote. In the general, that would be a tougher sell, especially in a midterm year where the prez’s party traditionally doesn’t do so well. However, if Obama carries thru on his core promises and lifts this country out of the recession - and Jan is with him every step of the way and makes an effort to get that word out statewide over the next year - she might be able to pull it off despite her very liberal track record.
Comment by Ditto Friday, Jan 16, 09 @ 10:59 am
As a resident of Schakowsky’s district, I don’t think she’s “beloved at home.” Constituency is changing (younger, more centrist/less liberal, less influence by the Emily’s List coterie and the old Mikva/Stevenson era Dems in Evanston, etc.). The further west you go in her district, the fewer supporters you find. Jan would never win on a statewide basis in a primary, no matter who she runs against.
Comment by jaundiced eye Friday, Jan 16, 09 @ 11:01 am
wumpus, burris is the quintissential perennial candidate. He’s run for and lost more offices than he’s actually held.
Comment by Ditto Friday, Jan 16, 09 @ 11:03 am
An insteresting anagram for Roland Burris is: Rail Burns Rod. Hmmmmm?
Comment by Jechislo Friday, Jan 16, 09 @ 11:03 am
I think Lisa Madigan would be the only Democrat who could win the Senate seat in 2010. But, if she runs for Governor, then the GOP will take back the Senate seat. I dont see Jan Schakowsky winning statewide.
Comment by RickMonday Friday, Jan 16, 09 @ 11:07 am
it is incorrect to say there is no gender card to play, ST. or more appropriately, open your eyes to discrimination against women and do something to stop it.
women have had the vote for 50 years less than all men in this country and in countless ways women are represented in smaller numbers than the percentage of the population they represent.
(Christine Radogno,welcome, after all these years of the Illinois Legislature, to one of the four tops positions.)
violence and degradation? have you looked at the numbers on sexual assault? the history of killing thousands of women in countries all over the world because of “witchcraft”? including Kenya, oh, just months ago? how about the years that women were held economic captives by men with the inability to inherit and controlled by fathers and husbands? (see Frederick Douglass and his comments on the economic situation of women and slavery. and credit issues for women continued well into my adult lifetime.)
and take a good look around the world where women and children are wage and sex slaves (did you listen to Hillary’s confirmation hearing presentation?) in countries controlled by
men of all colors.
one look at the percentage of women in positions controlling the news on tv and in government should also tell you.
the race card can be played because people feel appropriately guilty because of the horror of slavery. too bad they don’t feel the shame of sexism and the persistent degredation of women that this causes on a daily basis.
but, no, this does not mean we should elect Jan Schakowsky. and no it does not mean that Caroline Kennedy should be appointed to the seat. but no, the race card should not have been played in Illinois to seat Roland Burris.
what it means is that we should value the contributions of all people and assess them on their merits. and stop sexism and racism.
Comment by Amy Friday, Jan 16, 09 @ 11:07 am
In my humble opinion - In light of all of the corruption in the entire state surfacing, why do the citizens have only the “chosen” few to select from to any of the US and state-wide offices. We desperately need new blood on all of the ballots. I believe the voters would really love to have the opportunity to get behind candidates that do not “owe” their candidacy to a pocketbook.
Comment by Interested Observer Friday, Jan 16, 09 @ 11:11 am
Van Man-who would win if it’s Jan, Roland and Jesse?
Chicago African American voters will abandon Roland Burris for Jackson. We have seen patterns where younger charsmatic candidates whip older ones. Obama is in the White House, so Chicago voters want another leader, not a Burris compromiser. Burris would be abandoned in order for Jackson to win.
Burris doesn’t siphon off enough votes from Jackson to beat Schakowsky and I believe Jackson would win.
Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Jan 16, 09 @ 11:16 am
===I believe Jackson would win. ===
He has a little G problem to deal with first. Plus, he’s outed himself as a snitch. Not good.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jan 16, 09 @ 11:17 am
By the way, the only Democrat I see winning the Senate seat in 2010 is Madigan and Giannoulais.
Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Jan 16, 09 @ 11:20 am
I believe Jackson would win in a three way with Burris and Schakowsky in the primary, but not winning in the General.
Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Jan 16, 09 @ 11:21 am
I would add Hynes to Lisa Madigan and Giannoulias as three that could win the Senate seat in 2010 over Burris and the GOP.
Comment by Ron Burgundy Friday, Jan 16, 09 @ 11:24 am
Am I the only one thinking about Bill today? For one brief shining moment…
Comment by soccermom Friday, Jan 16, 09 @ 11:25 am
If I’m Mark Kirk, I am licking my chops if the Dem primary features Burris, J3, and Schakowsky.
Comment by The Doc Friday, Jan 16, 09 @ 11:25 am
===I am licking my chops if the Dem primary features Burris, J3, and Schakowsky. ===
Don’t get ahead of yourself. I don’t know how this became a major topic here, but move along, please.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jan 16, 09 @ 11:27 am
==Van Man-who would win if it’s Jan, Roland and Jesse? ==
The Republican opponent in November.
Comment by anon Friday, Jan 16, 09 @ 11:29 am
Yeah, Hynes too. Forgot about him - it is so easy to do!
Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Jan 16, 09 @ 11:31 am
Some of these candidates may be looking at the Governor’s race in 2010 when considering a statewide run. When’s the last time both races were up and competitive in the same year? 1998? When’s the last time a Republican won any of those contests? 1998. Just sayin’.
Comment by anon Friday, Jan 16, 09 @ 11:37 am
I will not be voting for Roland Burris for anything in the future. He put his own interests ahead of everything else and made his party look bad.
Comment by Votes left Friday, Jan 16, 09 @ 11:38 am
If Schakiowsky pursues a serious candidacy for the Senate seat, I doubt her opponents would be limited to Burris and Triple J. If Quinn establishes some normalcy to the gov’s office, he may not get a serious challenger there. I would think that puts Lisa M and Alex G into the mix, either of which would be a stronger candidate than Schakowsky statewide. And Triple J is no lock to get into the race, as Rich says.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Friday, Jan 16, 09 @ 11:40 am
I thought that Jan “threw her hat into the ring” at an out of state fundraiser of some kind in December when the special election was being discussed. Why is she being coy about it now? Maybe her husband’s problems might be too sensitive in the present climate.
I also heard at that time that Ald. Joe Moore might be interested in the Congressional seat if she does. (I don’t think he will be serving any goose livers at his fundraiser though).
By the way, any chance that Harris may be forced to spill the beans on Daley to get his deal?
Comment by MikeintheSuburbs Friday, Jan 16, 09 @ 11:46 am
The Democratic nominee for Senate will depend on who decides not to challenge Quinn. I suspect that the ultimate nominee won’t through her or his hat into the ring for a few more months.
Comment by Boone Logan Square Friday, Jan 16, 09 @ 11:50 am
Interested Observer, You won’t get new blood on any Illinois ballots until Michael Madigan dies, is convicted, or by some other means loses power. Illinois Democrats do not believe in democracy or basic democratic princples like allowing political competition on ballots. If they did believe in anything other than power and control, Michael Madigan would not be their State Chair and the Speaker.
Illinois hasn’t seen an independent candidate for the General Assembly since 1980. Illinois has some of the highest and harshest ballot access laws of any democracy in the world. The worst laws were recently ruled unconstitutional in Lee v. Keith. Illinois has held unconstitutional elections since 1980 and the “Democrat” Party likes it that way.
One ray of hope last year when the IL Senate passed a bill to make the signature requirements the same for all candidates without a single vote against it. And of course the leader of the “Democrat” Party of Illinois killed it immediately.
Blago pulls some strings to give our money to his campaign contributors and trys to sell a Senate seat and they are going to impeach him. Meanwhile those same Senators and Reps have been illegally and unconstitutionally oppressing political competition and suppressing voter choice for the past 30 years without consequence.
However that said, Roland Burris is probably better than whoever the voters in Chicago/Cook would have stuck the rest of the state with anyway, so no big loss with him or with restrictive ballot access laws. Way too many people in Illinois with their heads up their blanks.
Comment by TaxMeMore Friday, Jan 16, 09 @ 11:50 am
I don’t know if Burris runs in 2010. If he does, and if there are more than 2 competitors in the Dem primary, I think Burris pulls it out. I think as people see his votes (I was disappointed to see he didn’t vote in the cloture vote in the Ledbetter legislation, maybe it was before his swearing in), I think they will realize he’s a lot like Durbin politically. As he develops his own Senatorial personality and voting record, I think he will start to leave his connection to Blago behind.
I also don’t know if Mark Kirk survives a GOP primary. He’ll feel pressure to move to the left, not just in rhetoric, but in votes in the next couple of years. That’s going to tick off the conservative primary voters.
Comment by cermak_rd Friday, Jan 16, 09 @ 11:50 am
LaHood’s confirmation hearing postponed. Intriguing….. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/01/14/lahood_confirmation_hearing_po.html
Comment by Joe Kotlarz Fan Club Friday, Jan 16, 09 @ 11:53 am
One way to get rid of Todd Stroger is to promote him. STROGER FOR SENATE 2010!!! Endorsed by Barack Obama, not Rod Blagojevich, so he’s good. He’d probably win too.
Comment by TaxMeMore Friday, Jan 16, 09 @ 11:55 am
TaxMeMore, that assumes Stroger is succeeded as President by someone better than himself. As I look at the rest of Cook County government, I’m not so sure that’s the case. I mean, I’m not picky, I don’t expect superior performance, I’m perfectly happy to settle for adequacy, or competence or maybe even subpar.
Comment by cermak_rd Friday, Jan 16, 09 @ 11:59 am
Jan is beloved by her constituents, there is a little doubt about that. I live in her district and they think the world of her. Outside of Evanston, though, and I think she will have a tough time. I can’t see any way that she can win statewide.
Comment by paddyrollingstone Friday, Jan 16, 09 @ 12:05 pm
Race trumps gender is now the rule just look at the Dem Presidential primary. The differnce between Burris and Caroline is her half hearted and almost sad attempts at communicating why she wanted to be Senator. You can say all you want about tombstone Burris but the guy gets his point across.
Comment by Obamas' Puppy Friday, Jan 16, 09 @ 12:47 pm
I have nothing against Caroline Kennedy but she
wouldn’t even be considered for the Senate if
her last name were not Kennedu.
Comment by Esteban Friday, Jan 16, 09 @ 12:59 pm
Any way you look at this Dem primary it sets up well for Kirk to win the Senate seat. There don’t seem to be any right wingers looking to run so Kirk might not even have a primary to worry about and he’d certainly be stronger than Burris, JJJ or Shack.
Comment by Abe Froman Friday, Jan 16, 09 @ 1:34 pm
You would think for the reasons Rich pointed out that the party leadership would ask Schakowsky to stand aside. Mark Kirk is only gaining momentum and for once their party has put up a candidate that could win statewide. Kirk’s moderate views will win over every time.
Comment by Abe L. Friday, Jan 16, 09 @ 1:37 pm
How dirty can the Democrat primary get? You have Burris the appointed Senator from a Governor that everybody loves and Schakowsky who is left of Obama and has a husband who did jail time. If the Democrats don’t create the ads you can beat the house the Republicans will come up with tasteful reminders about who’s friends with whom.
Comment by George Washington Friday, Jan 16, 09 @ 1:42 pm
Kirk has to be considered the favorite to win. IL Senate has been moved to “toss up” by Cook and Rothenberg. He gets thru the primary, he’s the next senator whether is Schakowsky, Burris or recently-converted Spanky the Clown.
Comment by Wigwam man Friday, Jan 16, 09 @ 1:47 pm
===Kirk has to be considered the favorite to win===
He has to run first.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jan 16, 09 @ 1:52 pm
Whether or not Kirk runs he proved something recently - the moment he showed interest there was a pull back on the idea of a special election. Kirk has a lot of strengths and the Democrats know it. The Republicans aren’t that stupid not to clear the field or are they? Either way Kirk would make this extremely competitive.
Comment by South Side! Friday, Jan 16, 09 @ 2:12 pm
This is going to be a very tricky situation for the Dems. They need a strong candidate to jump in very quickly that is not ethically challenged. I’m sorry, but J3, Burris and Shak all have considerable baggage. Is there anyone else in the Dem bullpen that’s not more focused on running for Gov?
The issue only gets worse if the GOP jumps behind Kirk. Besides the moderate thing, he’s been all over ethics in Congress the last 3-4 years and ethics will be a major issue in this campaign. In addition, who else in the IL GOP will step forward especially if Kirk gets out in front and begins to raise serious cash, etc…? IMO, the other major GOPers seem to be looking at the Gov and other statewide offices, not the Senate.
Comment by Gob Bluth Friday, Jan 16, 09 @ 2:18 pm
Kirk’s moderate views will win over every time.
In TX, Kirk would be considered a flaming liberal:-) Come to think of it, the right wing of the state GOP does, too. Might be why that wing has not had any state-wide successes, save for Peter Fitzgerald’s fortunate run against a mortally wounded CMB.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Friday, Jan 16, 09 @ 2:23 pm
Rich, correct me if I’m wrong but the 2 roadblocks to Kirk winning the seat are:
a)The Right (are they still powerful enough to do this?) dispatching him in a primary because he’s pro-gay,pro-abortion,anti-gun ect.
b)The Obama White House giving his democratic opponent the full treatment-fundraising,political advice, organization ect-to avoid national embarrassment with losing his former senate seat in Obama’s first mid-term.
It seems the latter would be the bigger issue, no?
Comment by shore Friday, Jan 16, 09 @ 2:23 pm
I hope Jesse White runs for the Senate seat. In fact, I’m ready for a White and Rauschenberger contest. I respect them both and I’m ready for a win-win situation.
For anyone whose memory is a little foggy on the last go-round, Rauschenberger lost the Republican primary for US Senate to Jack Ryan; Jack’s personal life got a little too much exposure; and the Repubs who absolutely refused to support poor Rausch brought Keyes into our state to try to represent the fine people of IL. Needless to say, Obama won easily.
Rodogno thanked Rauschenberger in her Minority Leader speech, so I’m hopeful he may get another try.
I’ll also add that an interesting, relatively level-playing field Senate contest from a race/gender standpoint would be Jesse Jackson Jr v. Judy Biggert.
Comment by KeepSmiling Friday, Jan 16, 09 @ 2:27 pm
Unless Obama himself can run for the seat I think people overstate his impact. He won’t be able to lay hands on a flawed Dem candidate and make him/her clean.
I also haven’t heard of a single serious conservative looking at the Senate race.
Comment by Abe Froman Friday, Jan 16, 09 @ 2:29 pm
Biggert did a chicago tonight debate last fall with some weird guy,with all due respect, she did not look like someone who has the stamina to run for Senate.
Comment by shore Friday, Jan 16, 09 @ 2:30 pm
I would gladly support Mark Kirk. Unlike his predecessor in Congress, John Porter, Congressman Kirk does not ignore conservatives. He may disagree, but he respects the views of conservatives. As mentioned earlier, ethics will be a big issue in 2010.
Comment by Ravenswood Right Winger Friday, Jan 16, 09 @ 2:31 pm
===I also haven’t heard of a single serious conservative looking at the Senate race. ===
The problem is with the unserious conservatives.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jan 16, 09 @ 2:32 pm
Burris wins the three way race. No one “downstate” knows who Janice is and JJJ aint’s gonna pull votes outside of Chicago. No, I’d say Burris wins that three way. Burris is known statewide, the others, well, they’re just known “upstate.” Just saying…….
Comment by Deep South Friday, Jan 16, 09 @ 2:44 pm
Keep Smiling-
Like a car trying to navigate a city street today, Rauschenberger has no traction. White would cream him in a head to head race.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Friday, Jan 16, 09 @ 3:02 pm
Six Degrees, while I agree from today’s perspective, you know what they say about weather in Chicago…
Comment by KeepSmiling Friday, Jan 16, 09 @ 3:17 pm
Isn’t an unserious conservative kind of like a South Park libertarian? Hey, I resemble that comment.
Comment by TaxMeMore Friday, Jan 16, 09 @ 4:24 pm
Can Durbin run for Obama’s seat in 2010? Then we can go through another US Senate appointment to replace Durbin’s old seat by a Governor nobody really wants and The Dems get to punt another two years.
Comment by TaxMeMore Friday, Jan 16, 09 @ 4:28 pm
2010 is Roskam’s opportunity for the senate. I doubt Kirk could beat him in a Primary. He sucks up too well in the Party. He’d take the state in the General with the subsequent funding he could amass. Schakowsky would dominate the usual Dem strongholds in the north and south of Springfield. Nothing more.
Comment by Alison Friday, Jan 16, 09 @ 10:38 pm