April 2009

PPP on General Election Matchups for US Senate

Via Capitol Fax

Polling Memo:

Raleigh, N.C. – Roland Burris is so unpopular that even as Democratic as Illinois is, he
trails Republican Congressman Mark Kirk 53-19 in a hypothetical 2010 contest, the
newest survey from Public Policy Polling finds.

Even among Democrats Burris leads only 34-27, and among independents he trails 62-8.

Of course Burris is not likely to be the Democratic nominee next year.  But even with
him out of the picture Kirk looks competitive in some early match ups.  He is tied 35-35
with Alexi Giannoulias and leads Jan Schakowsky 37-33.

Those numbers aren’t quite as encouraging for Republicans as they may seem to be
though.  In each case only 19% of GOP voters are undecided, while more than 30% of
Democratic ones are.

“Right now there’s a lot of uncertainty among Democrats about their choices for the
Senate next year with an unpopular incumbent and candidates seemingly entering or
bowing out of the race on a daily basis,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy
Polling.  “Once they’re actually settled on a nominee next year that’s likely to change.”

Lisa Madigan, who has not shown interest in a Senate run, easily dispatches Kirk by a
margin of 49-33.

Madigan and Pat Quinn would also start out with strong advantages in the Governor’s
race.  Madigan leads Bill Brady 46-27 and Quinn has a 39-32 edge.  61% of voters say
they have no opinion about Brady one way or the other.

PPP surveyed 991 Illinois voters between April 24th
and 26th.  The survey’s margin of
error is +/-3.1%.  Other factors, such as refusal to be interviewed and weighting, may
introduce additional error that is more difficult to quantify.

 

General Election:

Burris  19%

Kirk   53 %

 

Schakowsky  33 %

Kirk                   37 %

 

Giannoulias 35 %

Kirk                35 %

 

Madigan  49%

Kirk           32 %

 

The one thing I’ll say, I don’t think Kirk wins in a race with Madigan for Governor given these numbers.  Madigan has numbers that are pretty damn amazing at this point. I don’t see how anyone beats her. I am uncomfortable with daughter father team, but it simply isn’t an issue for her and while it might be raised in a campaign, it’s not worked before and people know her better now.

Kirk’s problem–especially against Giannoulias in these numbers is that Kirk is about at the ceiling with black and hispanic voters for a Republican, but there are a quite a few undecideds in both categories.  Those are likely to disproportionately go to Giannoulias or even Schakowsky with a President Obama’s endorsement.   I just don’t see his winning coalition unless he can sweep all of the white voters and that’s not terribly likely given he cannot play on the wedge issues of gun and abortion.

Durbin on Cramdown Amendment

Last night on The Ed Show:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9XcT7FuQHw[/youtube]

Last bit from today on Youtube:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtHgxziLqCM[/youtube]

 


One other argument that I think takes the cake: “Senator, you understand the moral hazard here.  People have to be held responsible for their wrongdoing.  If you make a mistake, darn it, you’ve gotta pay the price.  That’s what America is all about.”  Really, Mr. Banker on Wall Street?  That’s what America is all about?  What price did Wall Street pay for their miserable decisions creating rotten portfolios, destroying the credit of America and its businesses?  Oh, they paid a pretty heavy price.  Hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer’s money sent to them to bail them out, to put them back in business, even to fund executive bonuses for those guilty of mismanaging.  Moral hazard, huh?  How can they argue that with a straight face? […]

At the end of the day, this is a real test of where we’re going in this country.  Next up, after mortgages, credit cards.  Next week, the same bankers get to come in and see how much might and power they have in the Senate when it comes to credit card reform.  And the question we’re going to face, is whether or not this Senate is going to listen to the families facing foreclosure, the families facing job loss and bills they can’t pay, or whether they’re going to listen to the American Bankers Association, which has folded its arms and walked out of the room.  Well, I hope that we have the courage to stand up to them.  I hope this is the beginning of a new day in the Senate, a new dialogue in the Senate, that says to the bankers across America that your business as usual has put us in a terrible mess, and we’re not going to allow that to continue.  We want America to be strong, but if it’s going to be strong, you should be respectful, Mr. Banker, of the people who live in the communities where your banks are located.  You should be respectful of those families who are doing their best to make ends meet in the toughest recession that they’ve ever seen.  You should be respectful of the people that you want to sign up for checking accounts and savings accounts, and make sure that they have decent neighborhoods to live in.  Show a little loyalty to this great nation instead of just your bottom line when it comes to profitability.  Take a little consideration of what it takes to make America strong…

I’ll offer this Durbin amendment as I did last year.  When I offered it last year, they said, “Not a big problem, only two million foreclosures coming up.”  They were wrong.  It turned out to be eight million.  And if the bankers prevail today, and we can’t get something through conference committee to deal with this issue, I’ll be back.  I’m not going to quit on this […] At some point, the Senators in this chamber will decide, the bankers shouldn’t write the agenda in the United States Senate.


Kirk Set to Jump in Illinois Senate Race

So sayeth Lynn Sweet

The assumption of the establishment of the Illinois GOP is that Kirk is a perfect candidate and they will throw their weight behind him.  The problem is that they’ve been dieting for a long time and the establishment isn’t what it once was.

The start of the Illinois Republican civil war really goes back to the 1990 election for Governor.  That year Jim Edgar, a moderate establishment type, was challenged by Steve Baer in the primary.  Edgar won that election and the 1994 primary against the other crazy Roeser–Jack. But the conservative challenges would continue and begin to be much more successful.

In 1992, five conservative GOP Senators were elected who challenged the moderate leadership:  Peter Fitzgerald, Chris Lauzen, Patrick O’Malley, Steve Rauchenberger, and Dave Syverson.  After 1994, we see the top of the ticket–either US Senate or Governor going to pro-life establishment types or conservative challengers have prevailed with the lone exception of Topinka who had multiple conservative opponents.

In 1996, conservative State Representative Al Salvi defeated  moderate Lieutenant Governor Bob Kustra for the US Senate nomination and in 1998 Peter Fitzgerald won the primary against moderate Comptroller Loleta Didrickson.  Even when conservatives haven’t won primaries, they have hobbled the more moderate establishment candidates.  Patrick O’Malley ran a scorched earth campaign against then Attorney General Jim Ryan in 2002 and Jim Oberweis ran a harsh campaign against Judy Baar Topinka in 2006, though the conservative vote was split between a few candidates.  The 2004 US Senate campaign was won by Jack Ryan who was conservative, but straddled the line with the establishment.  The US Senate campaigns in 2002 and 2008 were largely non-factors though the ultimate nominees were slightly more moderate.

Kirk is seen as a magic cure to the ills of the Illinois GOP that has been shut out of statewide office since 2006, has a Senate minority against a veto-proof Senate Democratic majority, and a Republican minority in the House in which the Dems are only a few seats from a veto proof majority.  And on the surface he probably is their best bet in a general election.  While one can (and I do) argue that he is far less indepedendent than he lets on, on four critical issues he sets himself apart from the national Republican Party (guns, gays, abortion, and the environment).

However, early signs point to social conservatives in the party to not be willing to go along with a Kirk candidacy and an insurgent conservative candidate seems likely to appear.  Yesterday I pointed to Tom Roeser explicitly rejecting Kirk and saying social conservatives will not work for him. While Roeser is a crank, he’s also an influential voice in social conservative circles having his own radio show weekly on WGN 890.

If Kirk decides and gets the party’s all-but-official nod, the party can kiss goodbye any hope that social conservatives will support Kirk. I divide Republican moderates as either pro-choice or pro-abort. Kirk has made no bones about the fact that he is a hard-left pro-abort. He supports not only abortion on demand but has spoken against the Born Alive bill which guarantees nutrition, comfort and medical care to babies born alive from botched abortions…which puts him squarely in Barack Obama’s pro-abortion camp. He supports partial birth abortion, public funding for abortion, total ban on parental consent and use of embryonic stem cells for experimentation. In short, where Jim Edgar could have been called pro-choice (he opposed partial birth abortion), Kirk is hard-line all the way.

It might be ameliorated if Kirk were to run for the U. S. Senate but as governor and leader of the party in Illinois, he would assuredly shut down any remaining pro-life dissent and would be a variant of Big Jimbo Thompson on the issue.

Roeser isn’t alone.  The Illinois Family Institute ran a column the other day saying:

Congressman Mark Kirk’s Feverish Defense of Thought Crimes Legislation
When Kirk refers to “a crime of a particular nature,” he tries to gloss over or obfuscate the deeply troubling “thought” part of the hate crimes legislation. When he uses the word “crime” he is drawing particular attention to the legitimate part: a criminal action — which, of course, is already illegal. When, however, he uses the evasive, obfuscatory phrase “of a particular nature,” he’s referring to the illegitimate part of the legislation: the thoughts or feelings of the perpetrator. Kirk cleverly avoids the troubling dimensions of this legislation through the manipulation of his rhetoric.

Moreover, Kirk completely ignores the fact that there are numerous incidences in this country and Canada in which people have been charged and convicted, either by courts, “human rights commissions,” or “human rights tribunals” of violating hate crimes policies or laws for merely expressing publicly the conviction that homosexual acts are profoundly immoral. Everyone who is familiar with this legislation knows that the groups most ardently working for its passage are organizations dedicated to undermining conservative beliefs on the nature and morality of homosexuality. This is a cause near and dear to Mark Kirk’s heart as evidenced by his 75 percent approval rating by the “largest national gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization,” the Human Rights Campaign.

The Illinois Family Institute is largely funded by Jack Roeser and his allies, the other conservative Roeser (no relation) in Illinois who has long bankrolled conservative challengers against the more moderate establishment.  Few things go out of it without his approval.

Rep. Kirk is considering a run for Illinois Governor or U.S. Senate in 2010. This attempt to ban free speech may – and should – come back to haunt him.

Frankly, even more so, Rep. Kirk owes not only the parents, but the children of Illinois an apology for proposing and sponsoring such extreme left-wing, abusive legislation.

This wasn’t the first threat from Illinois Review about his future prospects.  Eric Wallace went ballistic at the notion there shouldn’t be a litmus test for the US Senate nomination:

Then, quite to my surprise, this past Monday, March 23, 2009 Senator Cornyn of Texas was heard heralding the very same thing—“no litmus test”. And to whom is he speaking of to the Main Stream Media—none other than Congressman Mark Kirk. Cornyn goes on to say  “we need a moderate to win in a democrat-leaning State”.

 

I have a few problems with this “litmus test” rhetoric. First of all, the pro-life plank is part of the National GOP platform as well as the Illinois state GOP platform. Pro-family planks are also a part of the GOP platform, at both the federal and state level. Mark Kirk does not reflect the State party or the National party platform on either of these issues.

Secondly, the fact that party leadership would suggest there be no “litmus test” from one side of the mouth; and then from the other purport a seemingly self-serving statement that only a moderate can win, is in essence a “litmus test”. In other words, according to Senator Cornyn (and others) any viable candidate from Illinois need only apply if he/she is a social-moderate. Is this not a litmus test? But of course it’s your litmus test; and without question, it’s OK.

=============

Lastly, don’t get me wrong– I respect Kirk, McKenna and Cornyn. From what I know of them they are all good people, and sincere. But I’m convinced they’re sincerely wrong about who can win in this State. And unfortunately, if they are attempting to steer the election of the next US (IL) Senate candidate from the GOP side without a primary fight- they are sorely mistaken. There are those, including this writer, who will fight for our principles and not lay them down in the name of party unity.  Our Party is no better than the Democrats if we jettison principle for expediency. Why would anyone follow a party that painstakingly crafts a platform; and then ignores it in order to garner a few more votes? Like Esau we would be selling our birthright for a bowl of soup.

Let all who claim to be conservatives be put on notice. A day is coming, and is already here, when we must stand and choose a side. Will you stand on/for principles? Or will you simply go along to get along?  We will never see reform until “we stand for what say we believe and actively engaging in the political process that represents us”. This is at the very heart (and purpose) of Freedom’s Journal Magazine. Finally, what I found most compelling about that meeting in Springfield was Gov. Huckabee, who although not in the room when the chairman spoke, irrefutably contradicted his opinion. Huckabee encouraged us to “stand for life and defend those who cannot defend themselves”. He challenged everyone in the room to stand on principle, because that is how we’ll win elections. I agree with Gov. Huckabee. I plan to stand on principle. How about you?

 

So what does this mean for Kirk? It means he’ll get a primary challenge from the right.  His fundamental problem is that no establishment type  has gotten 50 % of the vote in a primary since George Ryan in 1998 and he was nominally pro-life.  Even when establishment types have won since 1996, other than Judy Baar Topinka, they have been pro-life:  Jim Ryan, George Ryan and say Jim Durkin (and I’m not counting Durbin’s last opponent who could have lost to the wacky Andy Martin).  While the Illinois GOP establishment may want to clear the field for Kirk, they have not successfully done such a thing in 20 years.

Kirk essentially is going to be a pinball switching back and forth between trying to be the moderate the Republicans need in a general election and the conservatives the party faithful will demand in the primary.   The end result will be a candidate who has no identity and will not appeal to independents or social conservatives.

 

The Illinois GOP condition:

There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one’s own safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions.

ICFST Loon of the Day: Tom Roeser

He may lead this to be called the Tom Roeser award:

The Strange Case of Obama’s Birth.

By now it is recognized only dimly by a few Americans that there has never been submitted by Team Obama definitive proof that Obama was born in this country, a prime requisite for the presidency under the Article II of the Constitution. Instead, questions about his birthplace are dismissed as racism by the White House and its bull-dog defenders, the liberal elite media which discount all genealogical questions as from paranoid Obama haters. Not so about Republicans, however. In 1968 there were serious questions raised by the media about George Romney who was born to American parents in Mexico. And early in 2008 the fact that John McCain was born to American parents in the Canal Zone. Questions like these were viewed as okay: not so any about Obama.

The official Obama campaign biography is all the media have and it says he was born at the Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women and Children in Honolulu, Hawaii on Aug. 4, 1961 What we do know is that no one …no member of the media…has ever seen his original birth certificate. Last fall Team Obama posted what they said was a certification by Hawaii that an original birth certificate exists in a vault but the location of the vault or place of birth is not listed.

Obama’s late paternal grandmother and several of his half-brothers have said he was born in Kenya and that his mother, 18 at the time, visited Kenya in 1961 in the late stages of pregnancy, was not allowed by the airline to fly back to Hawaii and gave birth to the baby in Kenya. A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent (Barack Obama, Sr. was a citizen of Kenya) acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of U.S. immigration law provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period at the child’s birth. For birth between 1952 and 1986 a period of 10 years (five after the age of 14) is required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child. Because his mother was not 19 years old, she wouldn’t have satisfied the requirement if rthe birth took place in Kenya-and Obama wouldn’t have been born a U.S. citizen.

Disclosures from Obama’s campaign fund last week showed that more than $1 million was paid out to a legal team to keep the original certificate from coming to light. Obama’s people could easily settle it by releasing his original birth certificate; instead they released a short-form birth certificate which can easily be manufactured by anyone downloading a blank template. Why, then, doesn’t his legal team end the controversy by releasing the original?

Be that as it may, we know he has been floating all his life in a disparate non-family structure involving scores of nondescript half-brothers, half-sisters and step-siblings in flotsam-jetsam fashion with supposed grant aunts and half brothers living in African shacks turning up all the time.

Lack of connection with this country may be one reason why he displays no visible patriotism for a country he may not feel a part of. To those who complain that this question of his birthplace is unfair, I say: end the controversy, then, by producing the original certificate. Instead they spend a million to prevent its disclosure.

 

Bat shit crazy.

Daily Dolt: Ron Stephens, You know when fluoridation first began? Edition

Ron Stephens is upset about the Homeland Security report that discusses right wing fringe groups and their ties to domestic violence. So he proposes a resolution condemng the report–one he obviously hasn’t read.

 

The report is here

It’s fairly generic and not terribly controversial.  It’s very similar to a report on leftwing groups released a while ago.

 

So the real question is why are conservatives seeing a report on a small group of violent loons as being about them.

Of course, Ron Stephens is also the guy who introduced a bill to ban fluoridation of the water.

 

 

 

 

 

Even When I Want To Agree With Him

Team America suggests that Mark Kirk’s moderation will make him the perfect candidate for the national party to support in 2010 for US Senate.

 

Will Specter’s defection have any effect on IL-10 Congressman Mark Kirk’s decision to potentially run for Senate? Not sure. Some have already said that Specter’s defection is a sign of increasing hostility for moderate Republicans in the GOP. That might be true locally for Specter in Pennsylvania (is that a warning for us here in Illinois, perhaps?) But, with Specter’s defection, if anything, the national GOP will renew its attempts to open up the big tent and embrace moderates to refute the notion that Specter’s defection had anything to do with policy schisms within the party. Not to mention the fact that the GOP needs to win back some Senate seats in 2010, and Kirk is widely regarded as one of the GOP’s strongest candidates anywhere.

 

Why would the GOP base as it stands now back Mark Kirk?  His environmental record? No, global warming is a hoax.  Abortion–no, we just got done with 100 Days of killing.  Gays–no, Kirk doesn’t hate gays and not only are they saying the hate crimes bill is thought crime, but deny Mathew Shepard was killed in a hate crime.  Guns–not even close.

The response of GOP losses in 2006, 2008, and 2009 is to be more conservative and true to the ‘party’s principles’. There is nothing suggesting the party is going to change that course in the short term.  Eventually, like all parties, they adapt, but in the short term there is virtually no evidence of any desire to do that.  I’ve long said moderates in the IL GOP are critical for the State of Illinois because they can hold Democrats accountable.  Social conservatives and movements conservatives simply do not have an electoral base statewide to do that.

In fact, if Kirk wants to run for office other than reelection, the best shot is for Illinois Governor.  Running for Senate will mean potential involvement of groups like the Club for Growth and centering on issues where he is most at odds with the a blue state. On the other hand, running for Governor as a good government reformer against a Madigan is a far more realistic opportunity.  He gets to run as a non-ideologue, he can use his moderate positions, and people seem to like him on the trail.

I personally think Madigan is a tougher candidate than many Republicans do because she has established an identity that is quite distinct, but I’d still say that is the office with the most opportunity.