Congressman Mark Kirk's self-imposed deadline to make a decision as to whether he will run for U.S. Senate, U.S. Congress (for a sixth term!) or Illinois Governor, is the end of the month.
So, while I'm sure that many people have weighed in with Congressman Kirk as to what he ought to do, here is your big chance at Team America to let Mark know what your advice is.
Which office offers Kirk the best opportunity to serve the people? Which poses the biggest challenge? Why?
Let's also try to avoid the obvious, folks. We all know that if Kirk runs state-wide, he will need a lot of money, no duh. But we can do better than that. For example, if Kirk doesn't run for Congress, is there enough time for him to build a state-wide organization, especially if there is a contested GOP primary in which the state GOP apparatus will not officially take a position (so I understand). Given Kirk's more moderate stance on social issues, will the hard-core right-wingers support him in a primary?
If you were advising Kirk, what would you tell him? And, if you say that this is silly and Kirk must have made up his mind by now, I would not be so sure. This will probably be the toughest decision of his political career. Over to you, folks.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
8 comments:
Happy to lead off by saying that it's my hope Congressman Kirk stays the course, runs in 2010 to retain his current seat in Congress. Why? It's not so much about the enormous challenge of raising more money than I think even he can envision, but rather about the almost impossible task of going up against the well oiled Democrat machine in this, the most corrupt State in the Union. Mr. Kirk is an honest man with more talent and ability than anyone can imagine. Sadly,that alone can't hack it. I would strongly advise him to take a pass on anything other than retaining his great leadership as our Congressman for the 10th District.
Mark should run for the Senate, which suits him best. In the Senate he can focus on his forte: foreign policy. In the race for Governor he does not have that issue to lean on, and he will be forced to answer too many questions on his positions on social issues, which could possibly derail his candidacy. In a race for Senate he could more easily change the subject when those questions are asked.
Plus, a large portion of Kirk's money comes from the Jewish community due to his strong stance on Israel. I am doubtful he would receive the same level of support if he was running for a position that would not directly affect Israel. The same goes for the Armenian money Kirk receives.
All in all, Kirk is a much stronger candidate for Senate than he is for Governor. I believe social conservatives will support Kirk for Senate because they understand that while they disagree with his stances on a majority of their issues, he will not make those issues a priority. In addition, he will most likely moderate a bit as he will be representing the whole state instead of a heavily social liberal district.
(Note: this is not intended to begin a debate on the importance of social issues...it is merely an observation as to how Kirk wins.)
Congressman Kirk needs to stay where he is -- the US House. We need his expertise and experience there. The Senate is a do nothing group of pompous men and women and only seem to care about getting their faces on TV. The Congressman can better represent the 10th District and advance his programs where he is. He can win in 2010 and when the District boundaries change he can reevaluate or make a run in the new district and win again.
While there are some in the right wing who have finally realized his worth to the 10th District there could be a bruising primary with state Republicans all critizing each other and hurting our Congressman in an eventual run for Governor where he could get nothing done as long as Madigan and Cullerton run the show or an election against the current State Treasurer who will surely win the democratic primary and be backed by the Obama machine.
Remember the citizens of this state are not bright enough to recognize a clean, honest, extremely hardworking, brilliant legislator and certainly won't remember the corrupt democrat party in this state. The majority will vote for anyone who has a "d" behind their name and why should we waste this exceptional man and his talents on people who don't know and appreciate what he does for this country.
We all know what the media did to promote the current President and the carefully orchestrated continuing promotion of him, his family and socialist agenda. We need Mark Kirk's voice in the House. I admit I'm being selfish but the State Republican party hasn't done much to bring the right wing and moderate factions together and doubt that they can get it done in the next year.
Baxter and Beau's Mom
Amen to Baxter and Beau's mom. I couldn't agree more. This kind of gamble for Mr. Kirk just isn't worth it. Where's the team ready to defend this seat should the decision go the other way? My vote is just where Baxter and Beau's mom is and I hope others share this as well.
Post from a Dem:
I think all this needs to be looked at in a wider context. 2010 is census year, and that means that congressional districts are going to be chopped up and gerrymandered. This will be done by the Democrats in Illinois. To make the 10th district go blue in 2012, all they need to do is chop off some of the 9th district around Wilmette (heavily Democratic), and place it within the 10th district, Schakowsky can afford to lose some votes (she has a lock on the 9th), and just enough of Wilmette and Evanston would probably be enough to ensure a Democratic victory in the 10th in 2012.
That would give Kirk three years left as a congressman. So, as I see it, why not run in 2010? In 2012, there will be neither governor's race nor a senator's race in Illinois. Kirk should jump at the chance to run for a higher office in 2010, rather than watch himself be set up to lose in 2012 because of gerrymandering.
Given his stances and previous actions, Kirk seems better suited for a run at the governor's mansion, but Pat Quinn's approval numbers are stellar. He might be better positioned to run for Senate. The guy has fundraising gusto, so doing a statewide race would be no problem for him.
Responding to a dem: Congressman Kirk's expertise is in defense and foreign affairs and cannot be put to use in this corrupt state. He belongs in Washington not Springfield.
Yes, redistricting will occur but my firm belief is that if it goes the way you suggest there is an opportunity to the west and I am sure he could win that seat.
Baxter and Beau's Mom
Congress. Obama is a machine and they will make it a case of Kirk's votes for Bush against Alexi's support for Obama's agenda . Obama will squeeze every vote he can out of the state and Alexi will blow Mark out of the water with fundraising. No way national Republicans hanging by a thread to the senate will waste their few resources in a state as expensive as this against the president. Democrats tried it in texas in 2002 with Ron Kirk, now USTR and got embarrassed.
1. Mark already said he's not running for Governor. The thing people who work on foreign policy in D.C. hate the most is state issues. They look down on state capitals as backwaters where hacks work on issues like sewage in mchenry county. Not as cool as micro-finance in melbourne with an embassy reception hosted by the deputy chief of mission and cia spooks. People who live the economist don't care about Springfield. It's the difference between Acadiana (fancy awesome d.c. restaurant) and Arbys.
2. Colin is wrong. Mark is not your typical moderate Republican who is also a wimp like Judy Baar Topinka. His military and fiscal conservatism (better than most social conservatives like the Hog Hastert) will reassure social conservatives, who will also be desperate to end the losing. Obama's been in office 90 days and already there are massive gun sales, conservative protests and hug it out sessions with Hugo. By this time next year Mark will look like a Playboy pinup to social conservatives desperate to stop Comrade Barack.
The backstory to all of this is what I have been saying but ignored thoroughly on this blog for years which is that we need a firing squad proceeded by banishment to St.Helena island for the state leaders. Andy McKenna can raise money but he hasn't raised the party's fortunes. We are a national laughingstock at a time when the Democrats are as corrupt as sin and providing no leadership in bad times. Democrats castrated (not for reading by son of ta) us nationally and statewide for what John McGovern, Hastert, George Ryan and the rest of the team did to the state and nation-McKenna and his spokesman that can't put out a press release with correct spelling at the right time, are impotent. We haven't done squat. Mark has been an absolute zero with party building spending his time trying to save the fine china (armenia, dumb local issues, that guy in the jail in south central asia) while the house burned down (iraq went bust, huge spending, schiavo, hastert's protection of a pervert).
FOKLAES
At this moment in our nation's history when the political center is all but dead, the presence of even a lightweight windsocker like Kirk in the GOP senate ranks would be a good thing.
Post a Comment