Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Morning Shorts
Next Post: Davis drops out of county race
Posted in:
* This isn’t the first time that David Hoffman’s campaign has made this claim. It’s apparently false. Oops…
Former Chicago city inspector general David Hoffman today proposed reforms of the financial industry, including creation of a consumer watchdog agency and curbs on interest rates. But he misfired when he used that message to take a shot at a Feb. 2 rival for the Democratic U.S. Senate nomination. […]
“Mr. Giannoulias made a campaign promise that he would not accept corporate PAC money. But he’s a banker and apparently made an exception to take PAC money from the banking industry. That is something I won’t do,” Hoffman said in a statement.
Hoffman’s campaign cited the Federal Election Commission Web site which shows that Giannoulias’ Senate campaign in June got a $500 donation from the Community Bankers of Illinois federal PAC.
Trouble is, the Giannoulias campaign returned the check…
“David is flat-out wrong. As a candidate for U.S. Senate, Alexi Giannoulias has never accepted any campaign contributions from the Community Bankers Association,” Giannoulias spokeswoman Kati Phillips said in a statement. “He owes the public an explanation as to why he would make this irresponsible accusation, and he owes Alexi an apology.”
*** UPDATE *** The Hoffman campaign has apologized, which is something you almost never see…
“It was an honest mistake, but a mistake nonetheless,” Powell wrote. “For that, we apologize to the Giannoulias campaign. We believe there should be a vigorous debate in this campaign, but it should always be based on an honest discussion of the facts and an accurate airing of our differences.”
At the same time, Powell said Giannoulias should agree to five debates.
“Just as you deserve our apology, the citizens of Illinois deserve a full and robust debate on the major issues in this campaign,” Powell wrote.
[ *** End of Update *** ]
* Meanwhile, Giannoulias contines to rack up the endorsements…
llinois State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias is set to receive the endorsement today of Illinois’ highest-ranking Hispanic elected official, U.S. Rep. Luis Gutierrez, in the Democratic primary race for U.S. Senate. […]
Gutierrez, who is Puerto Rican, endorsed Giannoulias even though another candidate in the race, former city of Chicago Inspector General David Hoffman, has a Puerto Rican grandmother.
Giannoulias has the endorsement of 10 Hispanic state legislators and Chicago aldermen. This makes four congressional endorsements for Giannoulias. Rival Cheryle Jackson has two.
* If this is what Cheryle Jackson’s campaign is gonna be like, then she’s in for a very rough little trip…
She used to be known as Cheryle Jackson. That’s the name she used as a spokeswoman for Gov. Rod Blagojevich and as president of the Chicago Urban League. But after she launched her Senate campaign, she decided to use the name Cheryle Robinson Jackson.
She uses her maiden name on her Web site and press releases — but not on the ballot. There, she’ll be listed simply as Cheryle Jackson.
That’s a really stupid mistake. I’m guessing that Jackson changed the name she uses after her petitions went out.
* The DCCC goes off-message on GOP US Senate candidate Mark Kirk…
DCCC Chair Chris Van Hollen said during a C-SPAN interview Sunday that Kirk is a “moderate,” contradicting his own organizations efforts to paint him as the opposite and undermining attempts by Senate Democratic opponents to do the same.
The US Senate Democrats have actually been all over the place, sending reporters links from conservative media attacking Kirk as a liberal and blasting Kirk as Bush lapdog. But they rarely if ever use the “moderate” moniker.
Of course, to be fair, Kirk has been all over the map as well.
* Related…
* Hughes: “I’m the Real Republican in the U-S Senate Race”
* Press release: Kirk defies Pelosi’s claim her bill “puts you and your doctor in charge”
* Chicago Minutemen Project endorses Zadek for U.S. Senate
* Healthy Competition or Civil War?
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 9:17 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Morning Shorts
Next Post: Davis drops out of county race
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
The Democrats are running a classic campaign of throw everything at the wall and hope something sticks. One day kirk is a flip flopper who can’t be trusted, the next day he’s a bush/d.c. republican. It’s a confusing message and shows a lack of discipline and ability to formulate political strategy.
On jackson, if a candidate can’t get her name right, isn’t that usually the start of the problem?
Comment by shore Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 9:37 am
–Gutierrez, who is Puerto Rican, endorsed Giannoulias even though another candidate in the race, former city of Chicago Inspector General David Hoffman, has a Puerto Rican grandmother.–
That’s a rather funny commentary on something, I’m just not sure what.
Alexi is the only one who has shown he can raise real money so far. Politicians respect fund-raising prowess more than anything.
Remember when everyone — Al Gore, Tom Harkin, Bill Bradley — was jumping on the Howard Dean bandwagon before Iowa because of his Internet money?
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 9:44 am
Whatever happened to voters deciding these things? It seems that political consultants are so hopped up on ego they believe the name of the game isn’t to promote their candidate, but to label their candidate’s opponent.
We’re tired of this game. It expired over the past year. When this tactic remained in the background, it was effective. But with it being reported and now out front before voter’s eyes, we see it for what it is - packs of lies told by idiots unable to sell their candidates.
If the Democrats want to win elections, they need to get larget turnouts. This tactic turns large turnouts into cynical smaller turnouts. They turn off those disinterested in voting. They turn off younger voters. They take what should be an advantage to them, and throws it away.
We’re tired of politicians telling us what the other guy represents. We are not stupid, and this kind of campaigning is insulting. Put out your best, run on it, and focus on bringing out crowds on Election Day. Anything else just dilutes any mandates that could be gained the day after.
Comment by VanillaMan Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 9:49 am
Has Alexi made any statements lately regarding all the lost money from Bright Start?
He announced a few months ago the losses were due to a rogue trader at the Oppenheimer Funds, and that all money would be refunded.
I haven’t gotten my check yet. What’s the holdup?
More importantly, where is Lisa Madigan on this issue? Shouldn’t she be taking Oppenheimer down for defrauding Illinois taxpayers?
Comment by Where's my money, Giannoulias? Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 9:50 am
===defrauding Illinois taxpayers===
This wasn’t tax money. Try to keep your overheated rhetoric to a minimum here. Thanks.
Also, while I agree that this fund was supposed to be super safe, if you invest your money in the markets, it’s not like you’re doing so without risk. And last year was kind of a bummer for the markets. Perhaps you noticed.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 9:54 am
I think the main “problem” with Cheryl Jackson’s name is Jackson. I keep running into people who assume she is part of that larger family……….and it is not a help.
She could have, I think, dropped the Jackson name when she first started with the simple explanation that it would confusing for voters. But it is too late now.
Comment by Redbright Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 10:13 am
Kirk may seem “all over the map” to some but that is because he defies the simplistic labels that true believers on both sides obsess over. Kirk does some very conservative things on taxes, earmarks, tort reform, crime, defense, health care, and some very moderate things on guns and gay rights, and some more liberal things on abortion. There is something for every left and right activist to hate. Which is why his campaign creates a frenzy among the chattering classes.
This is exemplified by the left’s furor over a Republican Senate candidate seeking an alliance with the GOP’s last VP nominee. Imagine that! Kirk wants to have solid support from his own party. Wow. So they don’t see eye to eye on everything. Kirk got lots of help from Denny Hastert too and they are just as far apart on some issues.
When it comes to the voters, Kirk has a real opportunity to strike a chord with the vast majority who are sick of hyperpartisanship, wedge issues and judgemental politics.
Comment by Abe Froman Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 10:24 am
Here’s some simple labels that fit Kirk.
“Phony”
“Weasel”
“Puppet of the Israel lobby”
Comment by Carl Nyberg Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 10:42 am
=== “Puppet of the Israel lobby” ===
That’s a very interesting comment, Carl. Whatever do you mean?
Comment by Team America Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 11:04 am
I probably do not agree with CN often but every contact I have in Kirk’s district has said for years that the Jewish base in his district would re-elect him forever regardless of the opponent.
Of course these folks must surely be upset now that he is talking about not agreeing with the votes he has cast in the past — just doing it to placate his constiuents.
Comment by Redbright Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 11:08 am
Rep. Kirk isn’t conservative on earmarks. He says that he opposes all congressional earmarks, but he ensured that the federal government spent money, in his district, for Metra, HUD, Headstart, and local police depts. He opposes earmarks, for other districts, and supports them, for his district, so he’s a hypocrite. He’s not conservative on defense. In May 2007, when 11 republican congressmen told then-President Bush that they opposed the Iraq surge, Kirk was the group’s leader. He’s not moderate on guns. His latest rating from Gun Owners of America is 0%.
Comment by Conservative Veteran Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 11:13 am
Of 435 members of the House of Reps, Kirk is the top recipient of money from the Israel lobby. See Encyclopedia Britannica.
The Israel lobby is buy influence and Mark Kirk is selling it.
Mark Kirk lied to help build the case to invade Iraq.
Which is Kirk putting first? Constituents and the truth? Or his fat cat campaign contributors?
Comment by Carl Nyberg Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 11:24 am
Yes, Redbright. So true.
Comment by Will County Woman Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 11:54 am
“Remember when everyone — Al Gore, Tom Harkin, Bill Bradley — was jumping on the Howard Dean bandwagon before Iowa because of his Internet money? ”
Yes, I remember it. But what that has to do with the IL US Senate race remains a mystery. Hardly an apt comparison.
Comment by JonShibleyFan Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 12:02 pm
Labels for Kirk:
“Hard working”
“Ethical”
“Winner”
Comment by 10th Indy Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 12:07 pm
Carl, Mr. Kirk represents the biggest jewish district outside of new york, california, and florida. It’s called representing your constituents. Political Science 101 would be a good course to take.
I also don’t consider the deerfield accountant who gives mr.kirk 100 bucks so his daughter can go eat a slice of pizza at a jerusalem sbarro without coming home in 50 pieces because of a suicide bomb, a fat cat.
Comment by shore Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 12:24 pm
“Remember when everyone — Al Gore, Tom Harkin, Bill Bradley — was jumping on the Howard Dean bandwagon before Iowa because of his Internet money? ”
I do - five years ago. I also remember everyone jumping on the Barack Obama bandwagon and HIS Internet money…
Money really matters this early 9or late - we’re only three months out.)
If you cannot raise the cash, you cannot communicate with enough voters on television and therefore you cannot compete.
Until the system changes and different rules are in place, this is how it works.
@VM - “It seems that political consultants are so hopped up on ego they believe the name of the game isn’t to promote their candidate, but to label their candidate’s opponent…If the Democrats want to win elections, they need to get larget turnouts. This tactic turns large turnouts into cynical smaller turnouts. They turn off those disinterested in voting. They turn off younger voters. They take what should be an advantage to them, and throws it away.”
I would point out that Dems have been winning lately - at all levels and younger voters turned out overwhelmingly for Obama. I would also poitn out that both sides are well versed in tearing each other down.
As a Dem, I would argue that the GOP is much more prone to this, but its a biased argument and many would disagree.
In terms of who is responsible, its not all on the consultants. The candidate is responsible for the final decision on a campaign and bear the ultimate responsibilty.
I do agree with you that while drawing a comparison between you and your opponent is critical, you also need to tell the voters what you stand for - and not just against.
Unfortunately, many times the best way to motivate voters is to motivate them against something or someone rather than FOR something. Its much easier to tear down than to build up.
Just take a look at the health care debate currently raging (sorry, couldn’t resist)
Comment by ChiTownguy Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 12:31 pm
Do Hynes and Hoffman share a media team? Between the two I think my two year old could write better releases that are more based in fact.
Comment by WOW Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 1:33 pm
Carl, you really could have found a better way to make whatever point you were trying to make in your 10:42.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 2:00 pm
On the GOP debate:
Losing NY-23 meant something to the GOP. That Democratic health care bill passed the House by 220-215. Owens was in his seat for NY-23, and voted AYE. In a floor fight like that, every single vote was crucial, not only for itself but also becasue of the potential effect on other Representatives. Without Owens, the vote was 219-216, and who knows? What if the GOP AYE vote from LA did it because he knew the bill would pass anyway? But if he votes NAY, it’s down to 218-217, and Boehner has a shot at getting one more vote from across the aisle.
All hypothetical, but interesting speculation.
Comment by Bubs Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 2:12 pm
Jon Shibley, the point was politicians are attracted to other politicians who can raise money, whether they are ultimately successful or not.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Nov 9, 09 @ 2:59 pm
Now that we know who is on the primary ballot, Mark Kirk faces a tough election. Kirk’s betrayal of Republican values makes him an unlikely winner. www.MarkKirk.us Please stay tuned. Money gives Kirk an early advantage; his built-in opposition makes an opponent viable.
Andy Martin
Republican for U. S. Senator
www.AndyforUSSenator.com
Comment by Andy Martin Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 8:56 am
I know this is a post from yesterday…but…
I find it hilarious/pathetic that these state wide campaigns (governor, senate) breathlessly demand apologies after some minor political swipes are taken at them. So, ok…the Hoffman campaign messed up. I wouldn’t have apologized…screw em! If they think Alexi will have mercy on them later on when the lies start flying, they are crazy. All they have done by apologizing is show weakness. Also, it humors me to no end how indignant these Dem. candidate campaigns act when faced with an attack. “You called me a name! I’m telling the media on you, then you’ll be sorry. No literally, you will be apologizing..” LOL
Comment by heet101 Tuesday, Nov 10, 09 @ 9:36 am