Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax
Next Post: Morning shorts
Posted in:
* This is why the national Republicans and so many prominent Illinois GOPs love Mark Kirk…
The chants of protesters could be heard throughout U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk’s Monday morning announcement of his U.S. Senate campaign.
“Health care now,” they repeated over and over from the street, as Kirk spoke to supporters.
“Those are the left wing guys I think. We’ll have the right next,” Kirk joked shortly after the chanters began.
Later, when he answered questions from the media, he again referred to the protesters, saying “I can see from the crowd here that the Democratic Party seems to be very worried about me, which is why they’re here.”
Whether it’s reality or not, Kirk has gone out of his way to position himself right in the political middle - and made himself look courageous doing it. No mean feat.
My old buddy Paul Green used to say that a moderate Republican running statewide will always beat a Democrat in Illinois. Those days are gone, but Kirk gives the GOP more hope than it’s had in years, and for good reason.
* It looks like Kirk will probably sail through the primary. He will then have plenty of time between February and November to plant himself directly in the center and tout his good government ways…
“I will be a moderate on the divisive social issues but a fiscal conservative,” Kirk said of his political philosophy. “But at heart, (I am) a guy who would be totally dedicated to restoring the image of Illinois and ethics and integrity in government.”
That’s a solid theme if he can pull it off…
“To really be effective and represent the entire state, you’ve got to have a broad appeal,” [former Gov. Jim Edgar] said. “Mark has a superb record of integrity and ethics, but he has a good record on the issues as well. We need to win in November and he can win.”
The party guys love “he can win” candidates. Independents will go for the integrity angle, which will only be helped by his military service (something Kirk has always used to its fullest extent in his campaigns).
* But what about the right wing and that cap and trade vote? A first class answer…
Kirk told me Monday he has been inundated with e-mails from Republicans unhappy with his cap-and-trade vote. So, why did he vote yes?
“We’ve sent three armies to the Middle East and I’ve fought in two of them. As combat veterans, we get to ask, ‘Are we going to still being doing this 20 years from now?’ So I’ve been in favor of anything that gets us to energy independence,” said Kirk, an intelligence commander in the Naval Reserve who was deployed in December to Afghanistan.
Energy independence and combat record all in one response. Not bad at all, even if it doesn’t completely quell the shouts.
* His campaign also showed a very deft touch…
Kirk divorced recently. When he was asked how that might affect the race, his ex-wife stepped forward to say she supports him completely.
“He’d make a great senator,” Kimberly Vertolli said.
It ain’t every day that a divorced man is so solidly supported by his ex wife. Don’t underestimate that appeal. But also notice how the ex stepping in completely quashed the line of questioning. Man, that was a good move. He can just quote her from now on.
* He didn’t run away from his divorce and he gets points in my book for not trying to hide from his past…
The 48-year-old North Shore congressman chose to make the announcement outside the home where he lived as a teenager in Kenilworth, reportedly the wealthiest suburb in all of Illinois. Still, the Republican said he was not worried about being labeled the candidate for the privileged.
“This is where I grew up, and this is who I am,” said Kirk.
* It’s no wonder the national Democrats are already posting slick Internet ads whacking him…
Cute, but will that theme work?
June’s NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey found more Americans (46 percent) blaming Bush for the nation’s federal budget deficit than Congress and the Obama administration combined. But that may not still be the case a year from now, and the more time passes, the more likely that swing voters will shift the responsibility for the nation’s economic problems to current officeholders.
Ronald Reagan, after all, rode to the White House in 1980 on a wave of dissatisfaction with Carter’s presidency, but that didn’t stop voters from spanking Republicans at the polls two years later (costing Republicans 26 House seats just two years after they won 33 seats)
* We’ll see how he does Downstate, where abortion, coal-fired electric plants and guns are viewed much differently than in the northern suburbs. But if his tour is only half as good as his roll-out, he ought to impress.
Thoughts?
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 3:50 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax
Next Post: Morning shorts
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
i don’t doubt that the illinois republican party regulars love mark kirk. he’s one of them. i have no idea if illinois conservatives love mark kirk; i guess we’ll see.
but i hardly see that as instructive. it’s very difficult for me to believe that illinois will send someone to the senate who will basically oppose barack obama and his agenda. we’re glad to have kirk’s vote on cap and trade. but kirk eagerly admits that he won’t be a reliable vote for the president. illinois’ sending kirk to the senate would be a clear repudiation of obama. and i just don’t see it…
Comment by bored now Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 6:43 am
I remember another GOP Senator from Kenilworth named Charles Percy….but he was not raised there.
Comment by Remembering when Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 6:52 am
Yes, good answers.
But… Did anybody are it?
Comment by hmmm Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 7:13 am
Bet Jack Ryan was envious! The fact that Obama tried to get Lisa Madigan to run for senate shows they’ve been taking a potential Kirk run seriously — the Dems need to get their act together. I dunno if Al G. can be Al D (i.e., Dixon) and while I like Chris Kennedy, I wonder if the name puts him too far to the left in the minds of voters regardless of what he does (though as a businesman and with a blank political slate personally, he has some freedom to define himself).
Comment by lake county democrat Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 7:23 am
I was at the roll-out and it was every bit as good as Rich says.
There actually were a few conservative protesters there, but they did not get a much attention because they were better behaved.
It is very clear to me that the Democrats are terrified of Kirk’s candidacy. Why else dispatch the protesters and have that video ready to go. But here’s a free tip, Dems, Dan Seals tried the “Kirk’s no moderate, he’ll just oppose Obama, line of attack before. It didn’t work.
Comment by feelin' good Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 7:44 am
lol. feelin’ good, we can only hope that kirk takes your advice and assumes that a senate campaign is just like a congressional campaign.
do you happen to know if kirk is that stupid?
Comment by bored now Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 7:52 am
I like the description of social moderate and fiscal conservative, but not sure I think he is as moderate as he says. I think there are lots of people who will support that stance but he needs to avoid pandering to the social conservatives who control the Republican process.
Comment by bourbonrich Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 8:02 am
Yes, roll out was well done. As people start talking more about health care conservatives will come to like Kirk more. Also the words integrity and Kirk will start to resonate with the base and independent voters.
Comment by Elephant Man Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 8:21 am
What’s I’ve seen from him, I DON”T LIKE: telling China, in person no less - Don’t listen to Obama - NOT GOOD and NOT SMART. That’s enough reason for me NEVER to vote for him.
Comment by notacelbrity getmeouttahere Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 8:30 am
If he is truly “in favor of anything that gets us to energy independence,” then why does he oppose increasing domestic prodiuction of fossil fuels, like those that could be obtained in an environmentally responsible manner by drilling in ANWAR?
Comment by GoldCoastConservative Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 8:37 am
While I wasn’t impressed with him as he flailed around trying to decide, I was impressed with him yesterday.
The GOP can win with Kirk.
There are two crucial steps to using Bush as the GOP used Carter. First, Obama has to do a 180 from where Bush stood, and make it work. So far, he hasn’t done a 180, and so far, Obama hasn’t proved himself better than Bush economically. Reagan did, but so far, Obama has not. So, to run against Bush next year, the Democrats have to have a winner in the real world, first, to prove that they know what they are doing, and Bush and the GOP didn’t. They ain’t provin’ it!
Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 8:38 am
i’m a Democrat and I think that the roll out was very good for Kirk. he’s pro choice and that is the issue that matters most
to me. and i’m more fiscally conservative than most democrats. so i’m finding it difficult to get interested in doing much for questionable treasurer G, despite his many endorsements. someone like me stays away from helping the dems in the Senate race in any way at this rate. no money no help for G.
i’ll put my cash and efforts into another dem, in another race who is really worth supporting.
Comment by Amy Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 8:41 am
The best op-ed Kirk got was the one you noted which comes from the Rich Miller of national congressional political reporting stu rothenberg which basically says the kirk=bush claim is TOTALLY BUNK.
But if tying Portman to Bush is easy, linking the unpopular former president to Kirk is much more difficult, as the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee found out in 2008 when it ran a late October TV spot attacking Kirk for “his unbending support for George Bush” and for his “support of George Bush’s failed economic policies.”
Interestingly, it appears that both the 2008 DCCC TV ad and the 2009 DSCC video close with the same photograph of Bush and Kirk. Here’s what the 2008 edition of CQ’s Politics in America had to say about Kirk, who has represented Illinois’ 10th district since his election in 2000: “Kirk parts with Republican doctrine on a number of key issues. In January of 2007, he backed all six signature bills espoused by the new Democratic majority, including initiatives to promote embryonic stem cell research and increase the federal minimum wage. Kirk was also among the 17 Republicans who voted in February 2007 for a nonbinding resolution disapproving of a Bush administration initiative to increase troop strength in Iraq. Kirk’s voting record consistently earns strong marks from abortion-rights and environmental organizations.”
Kirk does not equal bush, but every time the democrats run that argument it will help kirk with conservatives.
If this seat goes GOP, you’ll have to wonder if Democrats will be mega p-ssed with lisa madigan for quitting on it.
Comment by shore Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 8:43 am
Will the electorate forget the Burris debacle donated to the Dems courtesy of Blago? The democratic candidate may have to deal with this.
Comment by Remembering when Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 8:47 am
You’ll pardon me if I take his “moderate” creds with a grain of salt. He did vote to make sending a “mean” email a federal crime. Heck even blog comment trolls would be outlawed with that law.
Someone needs to explain to me how being as far left as you can be on social issues is moderate. He couldn’t be more to the left on abortions unless he drove around in his campaign bus and performed partial birth abortions himself.
Comment by John Bambenek Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 8:51 am
John, moderate republicans in the U.S. senate generally vote for conservative justices a heck of a lot more than liberal democrats.
Comment by shore Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 8:53 am
But if tying Portman to Bush is easy, linking the unpopular former president to Kirk is much more difficult, as the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee found out in 2008
Again… as others have mentioned, in 2008 he was running for Congress. Now he is running for Senate, state-wide. Those are two VERY different things.
Comment by dave Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 8:55 am
“Paid for by Mark Kirk for U.S. Senate.”
Comment by just sayin Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 8:57 am
Kirk is a self-proclaimed “fiscal conservative.” Yet the Wall Street Journal calls the cap and trade bill the biggest tax hike in history.
During the Bush-Hastert runup of the national debt (from $5.8 trillion to $10 trillion), Kirk was MIA when it came to resisting the record spending.
Comment by reformer Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 8:58 am
Yesterday’s announcement had all the appearances of a house of cards. Enough of the news media can sense there is something worth uncovering about Mark Kirk. Whether it turns out to be something personal (like the matter that sank Jack Ryan) or another foot-in-mouth politcal statement (like the China comment previously referred to), yu can be certain that it will be uncovered. When that happens, the house of cards that is the Mark Kirk campaign will collapse. The likelihood of that taking place is only enhanced by the fact that Kirk will be attacked from the Democrats on one side and conservative Republicans on the other.
Comment by fedup dem Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 8:58 am
as evidenced by many comments above, the GOP right wingers will work very hard o help defeat Kirk.
Apparently a large section of the GOP is happy having Dems in office and are gearing up to help make it so.
Comment by Ghost Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 9:01 am
Or to put it another way,
Kirk knows the GOP, and the only thing Kirk has to fear is the GOP.
Comment by Ghost Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 9:02 am
Kirk’s candidacy hangs more on what Obama does in the next 18 or so months and the state of the economy in the minds of swing voters in the collar counties. The swing voters went with Obama in November. They may not yet be ready to repudiate their vote and go with a GOP candidate who will attempt to slow/stop the Obama administration. If they really want to see their vote work, they will go with the Dem and give BO another two years.
Additionally, IL is unlike other states where the gubernatorial race is the top of the ticket. The US Senate race is a second or third thought for donors and volunteers. Certainly the Party regulars are behind Kirk now, but after the Primary, the entire focus for the GOP will be capturing the Mansion and one or two of the down ballot Constitutional Offices.
If there is a glimmer of hope to get those offices, Kirk will be on his own in the IL.
Comment by SangamoGOP Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 9:04 am
dave, it’s not simply that he’s running statewide, but that he’s running having little name recognition statewide and having never been on the ballot statewide. arguing that you can’t define mark kirk as x, y or z is relatively preposterous. if someone wants to spend the money on it, they can define mark kirk anyway they want simply because he has no statewide brand.
those who assume that his il-10 brand will seemlessly extend across the entire state really don’t understand u.s. senate campaigns.
personally, i suspect the november question will be framed: do you want to send someone to the senate who will filibuster the president or someone who will support illinois’ favorite son? kirk will definitely excite the conservatives, even if they don’t know him. it’s the voters in between, though, who will decide this thing…
Comment by bored now Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 9:05 am
It looks like the Democrats are trying to rile up the GOP conservatives by questioning Kirk’s credentials in the hope that the GOP conservatives will vote for someone other than Kirk, whom they fear.
Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 9:06 am
bored, you have no idea whats’ commin’
Comment by phil Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 9:08 am
Its more that the base is tired of electing republicans who completely repudiate our values. We’re tired of the George Ryan hangers-on who tell us we must vote for Republicans so they can get their patronage jobs back.
I’m willing to work with those Republicans that do deviate from time to time from the platform (in fact, I’ve talked to several candidates who are moderate on abortion, unlike Kirk who is a left-wing extremist on the issue).
The grassroots is simply tired of getting yet another brown shower from the party elites.
A Kirk campaign ensures the Libertarian candidate gets 10%.
And its less that we want dems in office, its more the we understand to fix the Republican party we have to stop promoting dead weight who will make us look bad for decades.
There is simply no part of the platform Kirk supports.
Comment by John Bambenek Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 9:10 am
C’mon John. Fewer than 2% of Republican Congressman earned a rating of 60% from the American Conservative Union during the 2006 and 2005 Congresses. It wasn’t the moderates who made Republicans look bad. It was Tom Delay and the conservatives who put him atop our Party that are responsible.
Conservatives in the Republican Party who have systematically “purified” the party blaming moderates for the Party’s woes is just like Mike Madigan trying to blame Pat Quinn and Republicans for our state’s budget mess after Madigan has spent the last 20 years consolidating his power over Springfield.
Comment by phil Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 9:18 am
Unfortunately for the right wing of the state GOP, Burris will not be defending his seat. As in the election where Fitzgerald won against the hapless Mosely-Brown, Burris would have been the only defeatable D opponent for a hard-right GOP challenger in the general.
Come to think of it, Mark Kirk does remind me of Chuck Percy, the last GOP Senator from IL who successfully won election when not running against a goof.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 9:23 am
“It looks like the Democrats are trying to rile up the GOP conservatives by questioning Kirk’s credentials . . .”
And therein lies the tragic flaw of the Republican Party, at least in Illinois. The conservative wing would rather complain about “liberal”/Democratic candidates and policies than build coalitions that would advance whatever policies it envisions. And the Dems are taking advantage of it. And as a non-conservative, I can only be thankful for the conservative divisive proclivities.
Comment by Captain Flume Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 9:24 am
GoldCoastConservative wrote, “obtained in an environmentally responsible manner by drilling in ANWAR”
…That’s an oxymoron.
Doing more of the same (drilling for oil) does not end the status quo, and the current status quo of dumping ever more pollution into the air we breathe is clearly not “environmentally responsible”.
–
So far in the House Kirk has quietly gone about voting with the GOP on mark-ups and parliamentary maneuvers but then, on rare occasion, voting with Dems on a few high-profile votes (cap and trade and stem cells being among those few).
In other words, he’s tried having it both ways in order to give himself a patina of “independence” … but one man’s independence is another’s flip-flop, voting for something before voting against it.
Comment by Rob_N Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 9:27 am
John B. - Its funny that you’re criticizing Kirks record on First Ammendment issues on the internet when you filed an FEC complaint trying to shut down dailykos.
More to the point, I’m feeling pretty good about this race because its one of the few times I’ll feel like it won’t be the end of the world if my candidate loses. While I disagree with Kirk’s fiscal policies, I like the fact that he’s a veteran who takes a stand against our country engaging in senseless war. Being pro-choice helps too.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 9:28 am
Does no one else find the sequence of VM’s post about a dem conspiracy which is immediatley quashed by the next post from right wing GOP conservative commentator Bambenek showing the real attack is from the right wing GOP a wee bit amusing?
Comment by Ghost Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 9:29 am
The FEC doesn’t shut down anything. In fact, I’m pretty sure they don’t even have much power besides asking for reports. It would have required disclosure of how much Markos was getting paid by Dean and Lamont. Nice try though.
Comment by John Bambenek Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 9:31 am
If Kirk is the republican (small “r” by choice)candidate then he will NOT get my vote nor my wife’s. And no Democrat since the 1970′ has gotten our vote. Gee, you guessed, we will not vote that office. It would be like voting for limburger cheese. It is either a bucket of milk in the out house or a bucket of out house leavings in the milk house.
Comment by John Currey Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 9:33 am
What I find amusing is the fact that when a post questions a moderate GOP candidate, the Democrats immediately claim that the GOP is full of narrow minded bigots incapable of nominating a GOP moderate, smearing everyone, moderates and conservatives.
Take a look at the GOP in Illinois. It has a long history of nominating moderates, women and minorities. The proof denies the smears and the catcalls.
I don’t know if Kirk will be nominated, but to claim that he will have a problem being nominated from a party that has given us a long list of moderates, is nuts and deliberately misleading partisanship.
Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 9:34 am
Can we vote for the Kirkformer? He certainly is an imposing force with much charisma. Other congressional types would take heed of his words.
Comment by Jake from Elwood Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 9:35 am
Here’s a trivia question for you-
Who was the only US senator to carry all 102 IL counties in a general election?
Bonus question-
Who was the opponent?
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 9:42 am
VMan is a self-appointed spokesman for the know-nothing Fox News/Rush cabal that is killing the GOP.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 9:47 am
“Conservative” is probably the most word abused in the English language.
Look it up. Just as left-wing haters are not “Liberal,” right-wing haters are not “Conservative.”
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 9:51 am
Six Degrees - Percy’s re-election in 72 against Pucinski.
Here’s an interesting Illinois Issues article on his 78 race with this still-relevant passage:
Percy maintained independence through the long Senate debates on energy. Critical of many of the stands taken by his Senate colleagues, he sided with the President by holding that a crisis exists and that reliance on foreign oil must be reduced and ultimately ended. His major emphasis has been that energy sources must be conserved by reducing waste. To that end he is chairman of an Alliance to Save Energy, a private, nonprofit and bipartisan agency he organized to focus attention on conservation. The Senate accepted his gasohol amendment to exempt from federal taxes any fuel containing alcohol. He also won approval for experimentation with blended fuels in a test fleet of 1,000 cars. Rebating of wellhead taxes to states that support conservation also was accepted by the Senate, an idea for which Percy gives credit to Gov. Thompson.
…I wonder if the Wheeling Township GOP and other Illinois conservatives gave Percy an earful on energy policy back in the day.
Comment by Rob_N Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 10:00 am
The Gun Owners of America (GOA) grades Congress on their gun votes. GOA gives Kirk an F-, which is lower than the grades of his Democratic colleagues in the House, Congressmen Jackson, Lipinski, Halvorson, Guttierez, Davis, Bean, Costello, Foster and Hare. Kirk has the same grade as Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Teddy Kennedy and John Kerry.
http://gunowners.org/111hrat.htm
Comment by reformer Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 10:06 am
Depending on who you believe, the Illinois GOP doesn’t win elections because 1) it’s too conservative or 2) it’s not conservative enough. Both sides seem to have plenty of “evidence” to prove their point.
I am a pro-life woman and generally (though not always) what most people would describe as conservative (although I agree with Word, that it’s a grossly abused term). I have serious questions about cap-and-trade, and about Kirk’s involvement in the so-called hate crimes legislation, but I will have to do more research on those issues.
All that being said: the Illinois GOP has to start somewhere winning statewide elections again if it’s ever to get back on its feet, and Kirk seems to be as good a candidate as any to start with. Getting a public endorsement from his ex-wife insures (as much as can be reasonably expected) that no Jack Ryan-style skeletons will come popping out of the closet.
Comment by Secret Square Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 10:10 am
Kirk actually is not so bad. He’s a lot better on all issues than that goofball Fitzgerald who quit because no one paid any attention to him. He,like all good Senators, would vote for the President’s agenda much of the time. Another plus is that he would be out of Illinois most of the time.
Comment by Bill Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 10:12 am
==Kirk has the same grade as Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Teddy Kennedy and John Kerry.==
All the more reason to vote for him. Did Barack Obama get the same grade too?
Comment by Bill Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 10:15 am
Kirk thinks he’s gonna get this in a walk? I don’t think so…who was that “moderate” Lt. Gov that was gonna win the primary in a walk then got squashed so many years ago? Edgar and Thompson have a habit of endorsing people who act like Democrats and end up losing. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Mark Levin have really trashed Kirk for his cap & trade tax vote. If he did it for energy independence, he attached his name to the wrong bill.
If the Dems employ a strategy of running against Bush 43 (did you know he’s not on the ballot?) that will blow up in their faces because they’re running the show now and they’ve made things a LOT worse in a very short amount of time.
Comment by Segatari Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 10:20 am
Kirk’s had 4 tough elections in 10 years including a gop primary in 2000 where his millionaire opponents dug up stuff like an internship he did in 1982. That’s at least 4 different sets of operatives from at least a half dozen campaigns picking him apart looking for dirt. If there was stuff there, it would be out, though ayres and jeremiah wright weren’t found in obama’s vet in 2004 so you never know.
Comment by shore Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 10:25 am
So if he is always for energy independence, then why did he vote against drilling in ANWAR?
Comment by profiles in courage Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 10:27 am
Reagan and Clinton both faced some pretty big obstacles upon entering the White House. They did what had to be done to rehab interest rates to something resembling sobriety. Both put sound policy first and both paid for it dearly at the polls in their first midterm review.
Election day is a long ways away, but the trends highly favor the GOP picking up this seat. The chances grow if Kirk is the candidate. The ADM crew loves him and they just lost their last love to the White House. Tough times for those bubble surfers in Decatur.
Comment by Brennan Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 10:27 am
–Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Mark Levin have really trashed Kirk..–
That deserves a Badge of Honor in my book.
Seriously, would anyone want to live in a country where those ignorant bloviators held sway?
Don’t you miss Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan? You know, real conservatives with guts and brains?
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 10:28 am
Rob N-
Exempting ethanol from fuel taxes was a political no brainer for IL. Helps all those R farmers in central IL and reduces taxes at the pump for Wheeling Township and other motorists. Whether corn-based ethanol is a good “conservation” measure overall is another debate.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 10:31 am
==I have serious questions about cap-and-trade, and about Kirk’s involvement in the so-called hate crimes legislation, but I will have to do more research on those issues.==
A shot in the dark here, but Kirk’s vote on C&T might just be about jobs. The Carbon Exchange would be in Chicago thus advancing Chicago’s footing in the commodities markets.
The people don’t really know what cap and trade is. They certainly do not know what it will do to their personal ledgers. Any candidate with deep pockets can define it for them.
Comment by Brennan Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 10:31 am
==Don’t you miss Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan? You know, real conservatives with guts and brains?==
Well, guts maybe but brains …NO.
Comment by Bill Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 10:34 am
Sure, I know what cap and trade is. Its a windfall for politically connected rent-seekers. It has nothing to do with nor will it have any impact on the environment. But all our manufacturing will go overseas and we won’t see under 10% unemployment for quite some time.
Comment by John Bambenek Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 10:42 am
“Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Mark Levin have really trashed Kirk”. You mean to tell me that REAL conservatives actually pay attention to these blowhards who only truly believe in the one small plank of a conservative platform that they themselves have helped create - tax cuts for the rich (like themselves). The rest of the conservative agenda is just lip service to them. Please, I would hope real conservatives would just ignore these three clowns just like these three ignored the “conservative” Bush administration raiding the Treasury.
Comment by Bluefish Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 10:54 am
This right-wing buffoonery, so well exemplified by Mr. Bambenek, is laughably transparent. Kirk supports the overwhelming majority of the GOP platform. Yes, he is an outlier on the social issues chapter, and that is all you and your fellow-travelers care about.
What galls you is that independent and moderate voters (who outnumber right-wing nuts by a huge factor) generally gravitate towards moderation. they like moderation in spending, they like moderation in government regulation, they support moderating an out-of-control tort system, they support moderating union influence, they support moderating increasing income taxes, they support moderate refors to health care.
That is why Kirk has the Dems in a full-blown panic and why right-wing zealots CAN NOT WIN IN ILLINOIS! Please go away and stay in your cave.
Comment by E Pluribus Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 10:59 am
=== the trends highly favor the GOP picking up this seat===
Please, oh please, Brennan, explain to me how you support the claim that the GOP is highly favored to pick up a US Senate seat in Illinois–the president’s former seat no less.
Comment by Obamarama Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 11:07 am
Don’t you miss Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan? You know, real conservatives with guts and brains?
About as much as I miss Henry Jackson and JFK. You know, real liberals with guts and brains.
Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 11:11 am
VMan is a self-appointed spokesman for the know-nothing Fox News/Rush cabal that is killing the GOP…–Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Mark Levin have really trashed Kirk..–
You need to get your conspiracies straight. I do not like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh or Mark Levin, and do not listen to them. If I am some self-appointed Fox spokesblogger, I am not a fan of their line-up.
Find some new personal attack lines, OK?
Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 11:14 am
Tons of our manufacturing has already went out of country, is our power generation going to somehow follow suit? I don’t think cap and trade is by any means a perfect solution to climate change, but at least it provides an incentive for companies to cut down on emissions. What is the right wings great idea, let the corporations go green at their own pace? Sorry, that hasn’t worked, and it never will.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 11:16 am
–Please, oh please, Brennan, explain to me how you support the claim that the GOP is highly favored to pick up a US Senate seat in Illinois–the president’s former seat no less.—
The former governor tried to sell that seat and integrity is going to be a core campaign issue.
Comment by Elephant Man Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 11:22 am
@Rob_N ==> The bill Kirk voted against would have permitted exploration on less that two thousand of ANWAR’s more than 1,500,000 acres. Few to the right of Al Gore or Barbara Boxer would consider utilizing less than .2% of the acreage as environmentally irresponsible.
But I am glad to see that you do not disagree with the central point in my post - that someone truly committed to our nation’s “energy independence” would not vote against harvesting domestic resources.
Comment by GoldCoastConservative Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 11:22 am
I’m from downstate and the right wing of the Republican party, but I’ll support Kirk, because the Illinois GOP has to start somewhere, and I’ll vote for someone who will support many of the things that I want, rather than someone from the left who supports little of what I want. It’s unrealistic to expect a candidate to support 100% of my issues.
Comment by ChampaignDweller Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 11:25 am
==I don’t think cap and trade is by any means a perfect solution to climate change, but at least it provides an incentive for companies to cut down on emissions.==
Isn’t certain doom an incentive to cut down on emissions or has Al Gore, et al, had a difficult time explaining that to industry?
He’s really been roughed up explaining it to the members of the Academy of Arts and Motion Pictures.
Comment by Brennan Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 11:33 am
Elephant, what kind of swing do you think that is good for? Durbin won 67.8% versus Sauerberg’s 28.5%. By the way, that gap was even bigger than polling numbers predicted. Obama beat Keyes 70%-27%. In the past presidential election, Obama beat McCain 62%-37%.
That’s what I am working with. So are you mean to tell me that the GOP’s position went from the aforementioned numbers to highly favorable because of Blagojevich? Not favorable, not even just even, but highly favorable? Give me a break.
Comment by Obamarama Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 11:37 am
– i do not like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh or Mark Levin, and do not listen to them. If I am some self-appointed Fox spokesblogger, I am not a fan of their line-up.–
VMan, it’ not an attack. I’ve just been picking up what you’ve been laying down, brother.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 11:40 am
Obamarama-I think Durbin and Obama kill this race for the dems. Durbin has flip flpped all over the board on Burris. His pick is a guy who wrote bad loans to the Mob. How does it look when we roll out the Durbin endorsements of Burris next to his endorsement of Gianoulias. Not to mention, Gianoulias has not even attempted to play an active role in our state’s financial crises. I run Obama ads all day long showing his pick was Lisa Madigan. So you do you have? A banker who made bad loans to the mob and never showed up for work in Springfield?
When Cap and Trade puts the last nail in the coffin of the Southern Illinois Coal industry, the Obama love fest will be over. If that bill passes some Southern Illinois counties may see unemployment hit 20%. Not sure trading on Obama’s name will work at that point.
Comment by the Patriot Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 11:45 am
Gold, Clearly I was talking about air pollution from burning the oil, though yes 2000 desecrated acres is 2000 desecrated acres.
Did you used to tell your mom “But I only took 3 cookies out of the jar. The other 21 are still in there.”
And since you bring it up, I do disagree with harvesting domestically for several reasons:
- We do not have the infrastructure and it would literally take decades (not months, not years … decades) to fully develop it. Oil cos themselves admit this.
Why waste that time and money when we know it’s a non-renewable resource anyway? At some point we’ll run out regardless so why not convert now to more sustainable methods? Why the hesitation and hemming and hawing from conservatives?
- Just as domestic producers did last year during the gas price run-up there would be nothing preventing oil cos from taking any hypothetical, decades-in-the-future ANWR oil and selling it to other countries. We need energy here and I disagree with that sort of back-handed gaming of the market (convince Americans we need to drill in America… but then take that American oil and give to other countries)
- More of the same is more of the same. Though Kirk has hung his cap and trade vote on the issue of national security, it is also clearly about reducing pollution. Drilling for more oil means more pollution in the long run. Converting to sustainable, renewable energy means less air pollution
—–
Six, My point was more that Percy back in the mid-70s was also dealing with energy independence just as Kirk is facing heat from his right flank re energy independence now.
And we know a lot more about ethanol (and alcohol) in fuel now than back then as it is.
Comment by Rob_N Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 11:46 am
=== I’ve just been picking up what you’ve been laying down, brother. ===
I hope your using a shovel….
Comment by Ghost Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 11:51 am
==I do not like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh or Mark Levin, and do not listen to them.==
Those guys are just a little too liberal for Vannie’s taste.
Comment by Bill Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 11:55 am
I wouldn’t know.
Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 12:24 pm
E Pluribus - A recent published and aired poll found 40% of Americans identify themselves as conservatives. Only 20% identify themselves as liberals. Don’t tell me conservatives are a small group. Don’t underestimate us.
Comment by Segatari Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 1:00 pm
Segatari, when you cite a poll please include a link. That way we know you aren’t relying on your memory.
Thanks.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 1:02 pm
A Rob_N ==> Pretty sure that it will “literally take decades (not months, not years … decades) to fully develop” a national renewable energy infrastructure as well. (Which I, for the record support, also support.) In the meantime we should harness every bit of our nation’s domestic energy resources to reduce our dependence on dictators and despots.
And the bit about domestic resources polluting the air is a bit of a red herring. I’m sure you noticed that China has already surpassed the U.S. as the world’s largest emmitter of CO2. And no mattter what draconian restrictions we impose upon our own economic output over the next several decades, the amount of GHG savings will be easily eclipsed by the emissions from China, India and other developing ecomomies.
Comment by GoldCoastConservative Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 1:12 pm
Segatari is likely referring to the Gallup poll published on June 15, 2009.
http://is.gd/1GDQY
==PRINCETON, NJ — Thus far in 2009, 40% of Americans interviewed in national Gallup Poll surveys describe their political views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal.==
Comment by Brennan Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 1:13 pm
I might remind all you haters of Cap and Trade that your very own GHW Bush first introduced the concept in his 1990 Clean Air Act amendments, and that McCain and the GOP also supported the system. Calling Kirk a RINO for voting for C+T is also calling Bush Sr., John McCain and the pre-2008 GOP RINOs. Unless Obama has singlehandedly changed the GOP ideology, don’t be hypocritical and criticize Kirk over C+T.
Comment by earnest Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 1:47 pm
==> Earnest ==> All Kirk’s cap and trade vote does is establish him as a conservative who isn’t party line on very few issues. He’s got an 85% conservative record, and while that’s not exactly ideal for the IL GOP hardliners, it’s the thing that’ll win moderates in Illinois in addition to the fiscal conservatives.
Comment by calvinball Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 1:54 pm
The fact is that if the Illinois GOP wants any chance at gaining a victory, it needs to rally behind Mark Kirk. We have not had a Republican in the executive branch of our state in 3 years and we have not voted as a state for a Republican in over 15 years. If we want to have a Republican senator, the GOP has to stand behind a man who is moderate enough to garner non-hard line conservative votes. Lets face it, the Illinois GOP has been shattered and more radical rightwing conservativism is not the answer. Moderate, thoughtful, conservatives are. And seeing as perhaps the most important form of conservativism today is fiscal conservativism, I am fairly certain that Kirk’s vote against the Obama budget, against the Obama stimulus plan, against the Omnibus bill and against the new government run healthcare plan qualifies him as a reliable fiscal conservative.
Comment by John Blankenship Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 1:54 pm
My idea of “energy independence” is relying less and less on inefficiently-produced, resource depleting and non-lasting energy supplies. At one time conservation and environmental stewardship were core conservative values. Theodore Roosevelt once said “to waste, to destroy, our natural resources, to skin and exhaust the land instead of using it so as to increase its usefulness, will result in undermining in the days of our children the very prosperity which we ought by right to hand down to them.”
Even Barry Goldwater had a green streak. He said “while I am a great believer in the free enterprise system and all that it entails, I am an even stronger believer in the right of our people to live in a clean and pollution-free environment.” It’s too bad that many in the GOP conservative wing have lost sight of these values.
Comment by Central IL Guy Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 2:14 pm
Stu Rothenberg currently rates the senate race a narrow advantage for the D’s while Charlie Cook says it is a toss-up.
Comment by RobRoy Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 2:59 pm
Gold says, “Pretty sure that it will “literally take decades (not months, not years … decades) to fully develop” a national renewable energy infrastructure as well”
Which is why I wrote, “Why waste that time and money when we know it’s a non-renewable resource anyway? At some point we’ll run out regardless so why not convert now to more sustainable methods? Why the hesitation and hemming and hawing from conservatives?”
…
Gold also wrote, “no mattter what draconian restrictions we impose upon our own economic output over the next several decades, the amount of GHG savings will be easily eclipsed by the emissions from China, India and other developing ecomomies.”
Valid point. But they’ll never scale back their pollution if we and other industrialized nations don’t do as we preach ourselves.
If polluting countries still don’t go along put a “green tariff” on their goods to make imported ‘dirty’ products less marketable and offset the pollution by buying and preserving forests, investing in renewables, etc.
We shouldn’t throw up our arms, give up and fall headlong into a race to the bottom, which is essentially what your earlier retort implies.
Instead, we have to realize that dumping garbage in our air isn’t free despite the ease with which smokestacks can be built.
Either we pay for that garbage up front through cap and trade or on the back end with continued higher rates of asthma, bouts of acid rain, etc.
Comment by Rob_N Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 3:09 pm
I have yet to hear a congnizant argument against cap and trade citing credible statistics instead of conservatives spewing vitrol…
Comment by bullmooser Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 3:24 pm
The aforementioned Gallup poll also states that 22% of Democrats identify themselves as Conservatives. Huh?
That being said, Segatari, that was a national poll and we are talking about a statewide race in Illinois. Maybe not apples and oranges, but at least apples and caramel apples.
Comment by Obamarama Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 3:29 pm
John Blankenship,
Care to explain his votes for the unpaid-for Iraq War plus all those yearly quasi-off the books supplementals…
his votes for budget-busting tax cuts to the wealthy which took the US from paying down our debt to evermore debt…
his votes for increasing that national debt via GOP spending bills and on and on…
Bundles of $100 bill were literally “falling off trucks” in Iraq and he voted for it, yet after years of voting to build hospitals for Iraqis now he says we can’t help Americans with their health care. Seems discongruous.
His actual record (the votes he doesn’t like supporters to bring up in talking points) sort of bursts that “fiscal conservative” balloon rightquick, no?
Comment by Rob_N Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 4:10 pm
==It’s too bad that many in the GOP conservative wing have lost sight of these values.==
I’m going to guess you don’t know much about conservative political philosophy, but a good start would be to understand that Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive and quite far from what would have been conservative in his heyday.
What you mention about waste is relevant across all political tribes. Best go with Ben Franklin and recognize thrift as paramount in your practices and waste as resource with better unrealized allocation.
One tiny problem though, is carbon emission waste? It may have a better use. Carbon trading markets try to create a use out of it. There may be better options.
Obamarama: Conservative Democrats, tell me you’ve at least heard of them. They even live in Illinois. Mostly in the suburbs, but we’re still counting that as Illinois.
Comment by Brennan Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 4:34 pm
Rob: Whatever surplus the Treasury reported was revised to show there never was a surplus. Adjusted figures turned that surplus into yet another deficit. That is if we are using your real math you apply to Kirk.
Also, the recession in 20004Q predated the 20012Q tax cuts.
Comment by Brennan Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 5:08 pm
[…] https://capitolfax.com/2009/07/21/kirks-roll-out-couldnt-have-been-better/ […]
Pingback by Congressman Mark Kirk dishonors America’s combat veterans « Andy for U. S. Senator Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 5:53 pm
The Ad is interesting. No…intriguing.
Reminds me of a conversation between Gomez and Dr. Pinderschloss.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 10:21 pm
Brennan, That doesn’t explain why someone who claims to be a “fiscal conservative” would vote aye on so many policies that increased the national debt.
If increasing the national debt is what he thinks is “fiscally conservative” how can we take his word on anything else he says?
Comment by Rob_N Tuesday, Jul 21, 09 @ 11:14 pm
Mark Kirk’s voting record speaks for itself.
Republican Positions and Votes by Congressman Mark Kirk in the 111th Congress:
Obama Budget-Republican
Card Check-Republican
$787B Stimulus-Republican
$410B Omnibus-Republican
Earmarks-Republican
Cap & Trade-Democratic
Gov’t Health Care-Republican
Illegal Amnesty-Republican
Border Wall-Republican
Keep Gitmo-Republican
Afghan timetable-Republican
Balanced Budget-Republican
Missile Defense-Republican
Ledbetter Act-Republican
Once we finally get rid of the tainted Burris from the senate, Illinois needs a strong senate voice. I think we all must take a moment to address that exact question; how exactly can a US senator clean the State of Illinois? The answer is not a simple one.
The solution is complex, long, and will require commitments by both parties and throughout the entangled web of bureaucracy. To take the first step, we need a leader is focused on solving the problem; simply listening to Mark Kirk’s speech as he announced that he would be running for senate, all of Illinois now should know that cleaning up Illinois is one of his top priorities. So that becomes the first step, having a clean leader who believes in the importance of cleaning up the Illinois system. He has shown from his past voting in the House that he has set up incentives for those who stay clean and harsh punishments such as eliminating pensions for the corrupt leaders. But being a senator and a leader will only enhance Kirk’s ability to allow him to have more power over seeking out the bad apples, destroying them, and in their place planting the seeds for a new governmental system, one that puts a premium on honesty and integrity.
Comment by J Stone Wednesday, Jul 22, 09 @ 11:42 am
I don’t have a dog in that fight, but looking at that anti-Kirk TV spot, the robot they used in their animation is a copyrighted 3d model from the Newtek company, used in the training for their Lightwave animation software. And nobody has permission to use that model, called “Apebot”, in for-profit or broadcast usage. So either the campaign organization or the TV production company that made the spot is in trouble for copyright violation.
Comment by Animation geek Thursday, Jul 23, 09 @ 7:44 am
Even if Kirk has voted for increased spending, he has voted for significantly less spending then many of his Democratic colleagues in Congress. It’s true, the ideas of real fiscal conservativism have been relegated to third party status (libertarian party) but if your goal is to reduce spending, at least a little bit, Kirk is the only person who can come out of Illinois and do that. Is he the ideal fiscal conservative? No, but no one is. Kirk remains the only viable Republican candidate for the Illinois Senate seat and like I said, if the ultimate goal is reducing spending, better a moderate fiscal conservative then a big government liberal.
Comment by Kevin F Smith Thursday, Jul 23, 09 @ 11:44 am
Kirk is truly a remarkable candidate. He has managed to stay away from the corruption plaguing our state, unlike Giannoulias. He has proven time and again to be an independent voice in the senate. Kirk is the best politician to come out of this state since Lincoln.
Comment by Jarred Nelson Friday, Jul 24, 09 @ 3:40 pm