This morning Politico has an article up that seems to paint Roland Burris as a victim of his own mismanaged PR strategy, not a liar who is trying desperately to parse words to hide the fact that he was not forthcoming as to the extent of his contacts and involvement with disgraced former Governor Blagojevich before he was admitted into the U.S. Senate.
You decide- is Burris just another career lying Chicago politician that has now been abandoned by all of the other career lying Chicago politicians, or just a sad old man who didn't have enough time to put together an effective PR team to deal with all of the purely circumstantial issues that snowballed into the political nightmare we are all watching?
MEANWHILE... Over at Illinois Review, they are pushing Peter Roskam for consideration as the best GOP candidate should Burris resign now, or live to fight it out in 2010. As we've said before here, we like Roskam, we just think Mark Kirk would have more appeal statewide. Some point to the failed candidacies of Judy Baar Topinka, Christine Radogno and Dr. Steve Sauerberg as proof that a moderate GOP candidate can't win statewide. We suggest that it's not the issue of moderate or conservative so much as simply having the right candidate.
Let's hope that however this plays out, that the GOP comes away stronger from the process of determining a candidate, rather than weaker.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
You can ready the coffin now because if Roskam runs in 2010, he will get killed. Mark could at least win moderate voters and maybe even a few ticked off Democrats. Roskam, who struggled to beat a chicago democrat in one of the most conservative districts in Illinois, needs to wait a few cycles.
He's not a threat to Mark or the Democrats.
Anon-
You're right. Roskam would get killed in a general election. Unfortunately, Roskam would be a force in a Republican Primary. No one can deny that Kirk's been running as a pseudo-Democrat the past few cycles, and rightly so. He's had a strong challenger in a blueing district. When it comes to a state-wide primary, however, this strategy has created a lot of tape of Kirk touting endorsements from Planned Parenthood, the Sierra Club, teachers' unions, and other special interest groups unlikely to appeal to GOP primary voters here. A pro-choice, pro-environment, pro-teachers' union candidate leaves a gaping opening for a challenge from the right, something Roskam's in a good position for. Because his most recent campaign wasn't as intensely competitive, he's had more opportunity to create tout-able legislative accomplishments. On fundraising, while not quite at Kirk's level, Roskam's no slouch, and he'll have some national support that will have a lot invested in Kirk not winning. Also, and I want to say this delicately, it looks like Kirk's had some personal problems lately, and while it doesn't seem to be anything he can be attacked on, it might still factor in. No one wants another Jack Ryan.
TA- Sorry it's been a while since I've posted, I've been working and out of the country. I'm back, though.
The point is that none of what Mark or Roskam or anyone else does matters until people like Mark, McKenna, Roskam step up and actually do some thinking and work to make this state more red.
I think we are going to get ripped again here next year and perhaps start to see signs of revival in 2012 and 2014 when
1)the losers like tom cross and this radogno woman who do nothing but work with democrats have been cleaned out.
2)The democrats have had time to govern and give us new lines of attack.
My gut tells me a party based in the city drunk on its liberalism and patronage will fail and give moderate republicans a big opening. It's again worth remembering that Texas Democrats thought george w. bush was an idiot for 15 years, but couldn't touch him or his party because the state was firmly conservative. The reverse is true here and until we reverse that we are screwed.
FOKLAES
Welcome back, Tiki!
Post a Comment