* The Sun-Times followed up on a poll story I wrote for subscribers this morning…

“The Mighty Quinn” played as Gov. Pat Quinn finished his speech announcing he was running for governor Thursday morning at the hotel where he launched many citizen initiatives.

But then he left the stage trying to avoid questions from reporters about polls showing his support a bit less than “mighty.” Quinn’s nine months as governor — after 33 years as a political activist, gadfly and sometimes-second-level elected official — have sometimes reinforced his image as a populist but other times left him vulnerable to charges that he’s now protecting the status quo.

A new Rasmusson poll finds 53 percent of Illinois voters disapprove of Quinn’s job performance while 45 percent approve.

The significance of the poll is it’s the first time a Rasmussen survey has ever shown more voters disapproving of Quinn’s job performance than approving.

The poll, by the way, also had the generic gubernatorial ballot…

In a generic ballot match-up for the 2010 Governor election in Illinois, a Democratic candidate holds a 43% to 37% edge over a Republican.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in the state finds that another 20% of voters there are not sure which party’s candidate they would choose.

The plurality of voters not affiliated with either party (43%) are not sure which candidate they would choose at this time. Thirty-six percent (36%) would pick the Republican while 21% would vote for the Democrat.

More on the Quinn announcement from the Tribune…

He spoke before a phalanx of cameras about his plans for rebuilding Illinois, although he never mentioned his unpopular push for a state income tax increase as a method to fund his initiatives.

Quinn explained that his lack of mentioning a tax increase was because “there’s only a certain amount of things you can talk about in the course of 10 minutes,” even though his address to supporters was about twice as long.

* The Hill followed up today on the Ditka didn’t endorse Patrick Hughes story…

Ken Valdiserri, who serves as president of Ditka’s Gridiron Greats Assistance Fund charity, said the endorsement could have been forgiven as a mixup, but that the finance committee situation is another matter.

“He never agreed to do it,” Valdiserri said. “Mike doesn’t have time to be on a finance committee of any politician. He doesn’t have time to be speaking and helping candidates when he’s in the middle of his busiest season,” which includes serving as an NFL analyst on ESPN.

And then a few minutes ago the Hughes campaign sent out this press release…

The campaign of Republican U.S. Senate candidate Patrick Hughes has issued the following official statement with approval of the Mike Ditka organization:

“As of October 22nd, Mike Ditka is endorsing Patrick Hughes for U.S. Senate. This statement is being issued jointly by Mike Ditka’s organization and the U.S. Senate campaign of Patrick Hughes. We have no further comment on anything that has been discussed or reported in any media.”

Due to Coach Ditka’s numerous business and personal commitments, he will not be serving on Patrick Hughes’ finance committee.

* Meanwhile, Crain’s reports that Gov. Quinn wants the federal government to guarantee a $14-billion Illinois pension obligation bond issue…

According to newly installed state Budget Director David Vaught, Gov. Pat Quinn recently brought up the idea with U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and others at the White House. The governor got a good enough reception that “he intends to extend” his efforts, Mr. Vaught said.

A federally guaranteed bond issue could be an enormous help to Illinois in dealing with a huge fiscal 2011 budget hole that Dan Long, executive director of the Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability, the Legislature’s fiscal research arm, now pegs at $11 billion to $12 billion.

Mr. Vaught said a federal guarantee would cut the interest rate on such a bond to “in the 3% to 4% range” from “5% to 6%.” That would make it much more profitable — and less risky — for the state, which would invest the funds in higher-yielding stocks and bonds.

Since any profits could be booked up front, at least in part, the state would be able to avoid making hundreds of millions and perhaps billions in annual contributions to worker pensions that it otherwise would have to come up with in the next few years.