34 Comments - Mickey Blue Eyes - Monday, Sep 21, 09 @ 11:19 am: Cap and Trade is two issues in one — it’s an environment/energy issue but it’s also an economic issue because of what the bill actually does. Unlike a pure values vote, this bill has a complex series of equations that impact different kinds of businesses and regions of the country in different ways. I don’t see why Kirk can’t still be pro-environment and pro-ending dependence on foreign oil, while at the same time recognizing that one particular bill would have worse economic impact on the entire state rather than just his suburban district. - hrm? - Monday, Sep 21, 09 @ 11:22 am: What angry boos from conservatives? If you watch the video, the same people who were heckling him started cheering when he explained his change of heart. The “conservatives” who are still angry are the same people who insisted that Rod Blagojevich was preferable to Judy Baar Topinka, the Jack Roeser lunatic fringe. There’s a certain subsection of Illinois Republicans who will never be happy with Kirk, or really any moderate. As for the Democrats, I can’t say I blame them for trying to tear Kirk down. After all, their all-but-certain nominee, Alexi Giannoulias, is still going around talking about how he’s a “community banker” (whose “community bank” is failing) and the “most proactive state treasurer in the country” (who managed to lose $85 million in college savings and still hasn’t gotten it back). The Democrats should be doing their best to tear Kirk down, they need to bring him down to Alexi’s level. There’s no chance that Alexi can rise to Kirk’s. - proud vet - Monday, Sep 21, 09 @ 11:24 am: Kirk is in the military. He’s the only candidate who has literally fought for us — and his missions over Iraq and his mobilization for Kosovo was before he ever ran for Congress. None of the other candidates are or ever were in the service. He’s earned the right to offer a military perspective. - Greg B. - Monday, Sep 21, 09 @ 11:26 am: Kirk needs all hands on deck for what should be a toss up race and he is having a hard time overcoming trust factors with significant numbers of voters of his own party. He needs to demonstrate some conviction to bolster trust, but also needs to walk away from parts of his voting record. Maybe he can do that by telling us what he will do instead of what he has done. Focussing on the prospective aspects of his Senate career instead of the retrospective aspects of his mil./Cong. career. - downstate conservative - Monday, Sep 21, 09 @ 11:29 am: Dave Winters gets out and endorses Matt Murphy & his unholy alliance with McKenna & Topinka. I wonder what his pricetag was? - Team America - Monday, Sep 21, 09 @ 11:31 am: There are a lot of things to say about the U.S. Senate GOP primary, but one simple fact is that Mark Kirk is the only GOP candidate that has ANY chance at all of raising the millions it’s going to take to win the general. I can’t wait for the Q3 reports. For any Republican who wants to oppose Kirk, the thought of “Senator Giannoulias” ought to be more than enough for you. - jumpingjohn - Monday, Sep 21, 09 @ 11:33 am: I agree with hrm. I don’t need the Democrats trying to tell me what conservatives are feeling. I thought this was a republican primary? I guess this just further shows how much the democrats fear a revitalized republican party for next november. - Rob_N - Monday, Sep 21, 09 @ 11:35 am: Proud vet, Rich just had a post on Dem candidates being in favor of marriage for all, including gay couples. We know that in the past Mark Kirk has supported equal rights for gay citizens. Question (and I’ve not found anything on this): given his military background and his support for equal rights, do you know his stance on allowing gay Americans to serve in the military? I would think given his voting record, his past statements on related civil rights issues, and his military experience he would be in favor of repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Do you know? - siriusly - Monday, Sep 21, 09 @ 11:40 am: It’s an interesting strategy, but it would only work presuming that the right/left who oppose Kirk could present a preferable alternative. None exists on the right in the Senate primary, so they just look like complainers. The Dems don’t have a good candidate either. Maybe Hoffman, but he’s only “on paper” at this point. “all things to all voters” isn’t really a criticism, that message got Rod Blagojevich elected statewide two times “flip-flop” worked as an attack on John Kerry because the message of Bush was “I don’t change course even when I totally screwed up” LOL - Deep South - Monday, Sep 21, 09 @ 11:42 am: jumpingjohn: I think the Republican “base” is revitalized. And as long as the base continues to demonstrate its goofiness, the rest fot the party and the independents may just stay away. By goofiness of the base I’m refering to the birthers, the shouters, the race baters, the fear mongers, etc. - Team America - Monday, Sep 21, 09 @ 11:49 am: Hughes’ poll results are no shock, and fine as far as they go, but the question is, will he have any money to get his name and message out to overcome such low name ID (24%)? When Kirk goes up on TV downstate it’s all over for Pat, not to mention the rest of the field. - Vince - Monday, Sep 21, 09 @ 11:54 am: The size of Lt. Guv field is almost laughable. I haven’t heard of half the candidates listed in the Post-Dispatch story. It’s shaping up like a multi-candidate Cook County judicial race — where ballot position and and an Irish surname become the deciding factors. If the fields stays that big, which is probably a big “if,” someone might win either primary with 20 percent of the vote. Gotta like Murphy’s chances on the GOP side, but using the judicial race model, a lone female candidate could jump in and screw things up for him. Sandi Jackson should be favored on the Dem side, even with the ethical cloud hanging over her family. But the black vote would be divided, which means if Joyce can get a big organization vote out of the Southwest side/burbs — or if Boland can unite the downstate vote, another big “if” — either could sneak in with 20 percent or so. - hrm? - Monday, Sep 21, 09 @ 12:04 pm: As for Pat Hughes, don’t make me laugh. His poll glosses over his very glaring problem: people don’t know who Pat Hughes is, and they don’t know what he stands for. His name recognition from his own poll is only 24%. And how much do you want to bet that most of that 24% comes from people who think that the Cubs announcer is running for Senate? If Hughes ever does start to get any momentum, it will come to a screeching halt once people hear about his abysmal voting record: http://rodskindofrepublican.blogspot.com/ - 618Saluki - Monday, Sep 21, 09 @ 12:04 pm: Deep: I know what you mean about the base. We need to do all that we can to stick together through this primary, then back our strongest candidates next November. If we’re gonna have a shot at taking back Obama’s seat, we’re gonna need to get behind Kirk. He’s the guy that can win. - the Other Anonymous - Monday, Sep 21, 09 @ 12:18 pm: This was a bit surprising to me from the poll: 58% oppose same sex marriage with 28% in favor. Remember, this is the result from a poll of Republicans — 69% of the respondents are self-identified conservatives. To me, this shows that gay marriage is losing traction as a conservative hot-button issue. - Annon - Monday, Sep 21, 09 @ 12:30 pm: If Kirk has 65% name id, where does Hughes fit in with Arrington, Wallace, Zadek, Lowery, Kuna all of whom have been running for a lot longer and have actually voted in republican primaries unlike hughes. - SweetSteph - Monday, Sep 21, 09 @ 12:34 pm: did you know the Cubbies broadcaster’s real name is Virgil? There are several other candidates in this race. I don’t see Andy Martin or Pat Hughes or John Aarington or Robert Zadek or Don Lowery or Eric Wallace putting up much of a contest in this upcoming election. Most of them seem to be political novices who would be better suited running for local office or the general assembly, not for the highest legislative body in the country. - conserv - Monday, Sep 21, 09 @ 12:48 pm: I think Hughes is forgetting that he and Kirk are not alone in the Republican primary.  Personally I think the other conservative candidates in the race are more qualified than Hughes is. Eric Wallace has been in this race the longest.  He’s a great speaker, and has wide and varied experience in business.  He is also an African-American conservative, which the Republican Party sorely needs.  His website is: http://www.wallaceforillinois.com/ John Arrington has actually been elected to something, unlike Hughes.  He too, is an African-American conservative.  You can read about him at: http://www.arringtonforsenate.com/ Judge Dan Lowery is the only credible candidate from Southern Illinois.  He was a respected judge for 26 years and he is a veteran of both Korea and Vietnam, earning the Bronze Star.  His website is:  http://www.judgelowery4ussenate.com/wordpress/ Finally there is Robert Zadek, who is also a conservative businessman.  Where he has the advantage on Hughes is he has actually VOTED in Republican primaries.  http://www.robertzadek.com/ I would encourage conservatives who are still undecided to look at all of the above men’s websites - CarterK - Monday, Sep 21, 09 @ 12:49 pm: did Hughes poll against Zadek, Lowery, or Wallace? - Harry - Monday, Sep 21, 09 @ 12:53 pm: Is this the same Pat Hughes that rarely even voted? Skipped the vote on Rod Blagojevich? And now he thinks he can be a Senator? - VanillaMan - Monday, Sep 21, 09 @ 12:59 pm: Every winning candidate is all things to all people. That is how it works. Are you folks somehow new to this? If you support ideological candidates, then perhaps you are not aware of this fact in real life. - Rich Miller - Monday, Sep 21, 09 @ 1:04 pm: ===Every winning candidate is all things to all people. === Not quite. And the best ones do it in a way that few notice. - Carl Nyberg - Monday, Sep 21, 09 @ 1:10 pm: From my first meeting with Mark Kirk, I gleaned his military “experience” was more about cynical politics than actually learning what happens in the military. Kirk was touting the idea that service members were on food stamps. This was back when Clinton was President so it was OK to mention. He mentioned the military members on food stamps more than once during the candidate forum, giving him the opportunity for him to characterize his reserve service as a bigger deal than it was. After the candidate forum, I discussed the matter directly with Kirk. I noted the following: 1. Servicemembers on food stamps are very rare. (He disputed this based on his personal experience.) 2. Servicemembers on food stamps are by and large very low ranking (E-4 and below) or have large families (spouse and 3+ children) and a spouse that has no income. What kind of American job hires 20-year olds with just a high school education and within the first 18 months pays enough to support a stay-at-home mother and two or more children? BTW, Kirk also refused to acknowledge that since military families get housing from the federal gov’t (and this doesn’t count toward their income for the purposes of qualifying for food stamps) that food stamp eligible military families are already far more affluent than their civilian counterparts. Also, as far as I know, Kirk hasn’t done anything to give targeted pay increases for junior enlisted members with families. So, Kirk got elected to Congress talking about military members on food stamps and then didn’t do anything about it. Now he wants to get elected to the Senate talking about corruption. Has Kirk done anything about corruption when he was in the House? Besides helping Dick Cheney and Halliburton sell the Iraq War? Kirk is a phony. He should be rejected by people across the political spectrum, not for being too far right or too moderate but b/c he’s a manipulative person who has failed to use government to better the lot of the people he represents. - Shore - Monday, Sep 21, 09 @ 1:20 pm: having trouble posting. arggh. Can someone please tell cheryle ochocinco or whatever her name is today, that this is a run for the U.S. Senate and that a candidate that can’t do a straight story on her name is probably not fit to make calls on troops in afghanistan. - Adam Smith - Monday, Sep 21, 09 @ 1:28 pm: Hughes’ poll amounts to zilch. There is no real information there. The questions are blatantly worded to support Hughes’ likely attacks against Kirk. They won’t work. What’s funny is that the conservatives are happy to get votes from moderate republicans but then try to crucify moderates when they dare to run for office. Peter Roskam would certainly be back chasing ambulances if it weren’t for moderate republicans supporting him. If right wingers read their own poll numbers that they think indicate strength, they would realize that they reinforce their weakness. They cannot win in Illinois without moderate republican support. What sound thinking moderate would support any of the fringe nut jobs nipping at Kirk’s heels? None of them has any legitimate claim to become a US senator. Kirk’s appeal is strong across the spectrum. There are democrats and liberals who will likely vote for him. THAT IS A GOOD THING FOR REPUBLICANS. Not every Democrat nor every Republican can or should be a doctrinaire zealot. When Hughes, Roeser, Caprio, Proft, etc. see 20 Republican ideologues in the Senate I guess they’ll be satisfied. They will also have every whim of Obama, Emanuel, Pelosi and the rest of the Dems shoved down their throats. And they will deserve every bit of it. - Ghost - Monday, Sep 21, 09 @ 1:29 pm: === Republican Primary voters labeled themselves as 69% conservative and only 26% moderate. Positions on important issues also show the conservative nature of Republican voters. === And here we see the swift defeat of the GOP at hand. Your remianing base may be conservative, but your base is what now? low 20’s? Its way to small to win an election. The makeup of your dwindling base should not be the focus of a platform if you want to win an election, look at the the makeup of the independent voters. - Anonymous - Monday, Sep 21, 09 @ 2:39 pm: I’m not surprised that 69% labelled themselves as Conservatives; we’ve been losing Moderates to the Ds like mad. The key to winning this Seat will be getting those who have left back. Kirk can appeal to the Conservatives with the right message, including more details re: the “whys” of his position on certain issues (e.g., “Candidate A…supports gun control” might get you the numbers you’re looking for in your poll, but actual discussion may lead to greater understanding and maybe even “converts”). Having researched where Kirk stands on issues–and to a certain degree, why–I’m pretty darn certain he can pull in the votes he needs to win both the Primary and General elections because he can discuss the REAL problems facing this Country today (and required solutions), which everyone but the hardcore Ds share. Furthermore, a few Conservative blogs and pundits have already noted that Kirk is successfully reaching out and has opened up discussions needed to better understand what his new Constituents would want. Based on what I’m beginning to see and hear, I’d bet that Kirk can even do alot to help rebuild the GOP in IL. Hughes, on the other hand, is simply playing it safe by repeating “Conservative talking points”. Both Moderates and Conservatives should expect much more from their Candidates than that. And, contrary to popular belief, I’d say that Conservatives have more of a history in demanding–and participating in–that type of discussion. Furthermore, IF Hughes could even make it through the Primary, there’s no way he’ll win the General–and we’ll lose the Seat again, which is not something either the Moderates or Conservatives want. Hughes’ only strategy right now seems to be grounded in pandering and hoping that the discussions others have noted will somehow stop. - Abe Froman - Monday, Sep 21, 09 @ 2:42 pm: Memo To: Right wing zealots From: A conservative who lives in the real world Re: Destroying the GOP If you continue to expend more effort in vicious destruction of fellow Republicans instead of winning general elections you will turn all of government over to far-left liberal policies and destroy the very freedoms you supposedly hold dear. With the exception of the Lipinski primary in 2008 there have been very few Dem primaries where ideologues tried to destroy a moderate Democrat with the vitriol you regularly use. Were this a parliamentary system the idea of an ideologically pure right-wing party would be fine. You could coalesce with center-right parties to form governing coalitions but maintain control of your own party. Even then, since only a small percentage of the public espouse your views, it would require COMPROMISE. It is under “C” in your dictionary. Note that Mark Kirk has consistently voted with the GOP on most issues. Yes, when he’s off the reservation (abortion, environment) he’s pretty far off, but on most issues that come up the most in Congress, (spending, defense, regulation, trade, and others) he is a credible and well-informed voice for conservative principles. Also, if you weren’t so busy trying to attack Kirk on a personal level, you might be able to sit down with him and further expand his world view outside the 10th Congressional District and find areas of true common ground. ACTION ITEM: Get your heads out of your *** and help move the Senate one seat closer to a Republican majority. - wordslinger - Monday, Sep 21, 09 @ 4:15 pm: –Republicans voters in Illinois are not satisfied with the performance of Republicans in Congress. == It would be nice if some of the louder and most emotional factions of the GOP would give us a hint of something they find good in the old USA. We could build on that. - slighty bent - Monday, Sep 21, 09 @ 4:33 pm: I see a recurring theme here and in the political debate; its us against them. In that vein, both parties are becoming defined by the extremists in their parties and the “he’s not as bad as so in so.” Repulicans: Wake up and smell the coffee. The nation is changing and so are people’s values. Like it or not abortion is legal. Just let it go. Same-sex marriage is comin. Its what’s fair and equitable under the law. As long as they dont force the clergy to do it; it’s fair. Progressive taxes aren’t necessarily fair but we can’t divide the expense equally. People makin 30k a year can’t afford to give up 4-5k in taxes. Finally, this is the United States. We aren’t going to let innocent children starve. So, we need social programs. Democrats: We need defense spending. The US Navy polices most of the ocean and protects shipping. People have the right to own firearms; deal with it. Tax reforms are needed but people makin 200k are not filthy rich and shouldn’t be taxed in such a manner. Honestly, can’t we all bury the hatchet? Nobody wants to pay higher taxes. Nobody wants to see wasteful spending and corrupt officials. I am sure we can all agree on that. Let’s quit worrying about parties and elect some sane candidates. - Anonymous - Monday, Sep 21, 09 @ 8:10 pm: ===Every winning candidate is all things to all people. That is how it works. Are you folks somehow new to this? === I dont’ know, Swami, if you could give an example, it might be informative. I cant think of plenty of winning candidates who made the blood boil of 35-40% of the electorate. Even higher. - Central Illinoisan - Monday, Sep 21, 09 @ 10:15 pm: I am for Pat Hughes. Saw him today at the McLean County Republican meeting. Very sharp candidate. - DuPage Dan - Tuesday, Sep 22, 09 @ 1:26 am: slightly bent, =Honestly, can’t we all bury the hatchet?= In the words of the immortal Bill, “NEVER!!!” Pingback ArchPundit | Flippity Floppity - Tuesday, Sep 22, 09 @ 11:15 am: […] One fascinating stat from Rich’s post yesterday on Hughes’ poll is this: […] Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.