As Pace Struggles, CTA Claims "No Major Delays" After Doomsday Day One
CTA Doomsday Schedule: Day 2
Calumet Fisheries Wins James Beard Award
How To: Roast a Chicken (If You're an Idiot)
30 Percent Chance Of Hailey
Chris Cilizza, writing for The Fix at the Washington Post is reporting today that Senate candidate Mark Kirk is courting an endorsement from America's Sweetheart, Sarah Palin. According to Cilizza, Kirk fired off a memo to GOP bigwig and Berwyn-born Fred Malek, hoping to nail down a friendly howdy-do from Palin.
After noting that Palin will be in Chicago later this month to appear on "Oprah", Kirk writes that "the Chicago media will focus on one key issue: Does Gov[ernor] Palin oppose Congressman Mark Kirk's bid to take the Obama Senate seat for the Republicans?"Kirk goes on to write that he is hoping for something "quick and decisive" from Palin about the race, perhaps to the effect of: "Voters in Illinois have a key opportunity to take Barack Obama's Senate seat. Congressman Kirk is the lead candidate to do that."
The most recent polling has Kirk neck-and-neck with current state treasurer Alexi Giannoulias, although independents line up for Kirk by a 2:1 ratio. So, is it gonna happen? Kirk's vote for the cap-and-trade bill would likely stick in Palin's craw, seeing as how she slammed it in a WaPo op-ed in July.
Her endorsement of Conservative candidate David Hoffman in New York certainly makes it seem she's more likely to endorse a last-minute Hail Mary second run by Alan Keyes, although Eric Wallace dropping out of the race as a Republican makes it look like he might be lining up to take on Kirk and Giannoulias as an independent, which might be more Palin's speed. And considering yesterday's news that Hoffman lost while hard-right Tea Partiers are going to rage, rage against the dying of the right by opposing him, getting dissed by Palin might be in Kirk's best interest.
Update: Rich Miller at Capitol Fax has a few updates.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Oh god, I hope this happens. Considering her enormous success in the 23rd district of NY.
Will she use facebook or twitter? Maybe an endorsement by text? Voicemail? Fax? Carrier pigeon?
GOP=LOL.
You couldn't be more wrong. Hoffman's vote total went up immediately after he received some of these endorsements and the floor fell out from under Scozzafava. She may as well have been a Dem and she was to the left of Owens. For a third party candidate, Hoffman actually had a good showing. But I realize that point of view would actually require you to think and it is much easier to recite MSNBC talking points.
You people are so desperate for good news that you cling to this stupid New York 23 vote, where a total of 125,000 people cast ballots. Also, Obama carried that district in the presidential race.
Hopefully Palin's endorsement is more effective than Obama's multiple trips to NJ and Va were. You could see Deeds lose a couple of percentage points each time Obama strutted up to the stage. The guy acts like he is still popular but he is more reviled every day. In another year, Obama will be radioactive in all but the bluest of states.
Quit addressing individuals as "you people".
Mmm...bitter.
Watching Michael Steele, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Dick Armey, Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee betray their party to support a guy who doesn't even live in the district and considers local issues "paraochial" was a wonderful farce.
Elections come and go. New Jersey had two equally awful candidates. Virginia has gone for a Democrat as often as a republican (5 and 5) since 1970. It's not even a mid-term election, which, if history trends, will see the Democrats lose a few seats.
The modern republican party is trying to purge all but the most terrifying and irrational right-wingers. It's political theatre and I'm enjoying the performance immensely.
The real question is, in a moderate state like Illinois, why would Kirk want to have anything to do with her? I can't imagine that her endorsement will pull in more votes than it would drive away.
I was thinking the same. NY-23 showed that the conservative base alone can't win a traditionally Republican seat. Why would you seek the endorsement of one of the most polarizing figures in conservative politics in a state with a race with a smaller conservative base?
Alan Keyes got a million votes.
Always a chilling number.
Primary challengers, that's why. But it's a great question, and who knows how well it will work. Kirk is very obviously afraid of the right-wing extreme, which is why he lacks balls, in my view, and has forfeited my support and respect.
oh please, oh please
And I was thinking before this that for a Republican, he wasn't so bad and maybe I could vote for him. Not anymore.
I agree with the above commenters. An endorsement from Palin would NOT help Kirk in the general election. However, it might help him in the primary.
But why would Palin endorse Kirk, of all people, over the other Republican contenders? Considering that Kirk voted Yes on the cap and trade (actually, cap and tax) bill, it seems that he is not Palin's type of guy. Furthermore, he is a moderate on some other issues where Palin is a conservative.
I would *love* to see her "help" Kirk the same way she "helped" David Hoffman. *snork*
You mean, sort of like the way Obama helped Deeds and Corzine?
I might have voted for Kirk. Seriously. I never agreed 100% with him--I never agree 100% with any candidate--but he seemed relatively thoughtful and moderate. And I trust him more than certain (not all) Dems he might face in the general, and certainly more than anyone in the primary.
Not anymore, not that he is all but begging for the gold star of approval from the utterly worthless moron who couldn't even stick with her main job for a few more years, and who has yet to offer proof of serious thought on policy, or any kind of talent beyond a mild charm.
Kirk is a tool. God, was I wrong about thinking him an honorable, decent, serious person.
Please, oh please, let a reasonable center-right party emerge soon.
Oh, sure you would have. If I had a dollar for every time I have heard a liberal say "I would have voted for (insert Republican name here) if only they hadn't... You say this so you can appear to be a reasonable, clear-thinking moderate who looks at each issue objectively. You weren't ever going to vote for Kirk and you know it.
By the way, that was a highly intellectual, brilliant point you made about the GOP acting like Stalinists in NY. Although I could have sworn I've heard that somewhere else recently. Oh yeah, Frank Rich's latest column.
You people think you are so smart but you just take the talking points of liberal media/columnists/commentators and regurgitate them.
You people think you are so smart but you just take the talking points of liberal media/columnists/commentators and regurgitate them.
You can't even get through a sentence without talking about "you people" or making blanket comments about "liberals". Why don't you try to dialogue like the grown ups here and actually address people directly and maybe even try to refute their points rather than screeching empty bumper sticker slogans?
Quit addressing individuals as "you people"
Don't believe me then, you hopelessly ignorant asshole.
And keep wondering why the GOP is shrinking, with the purists taking over and driving others away. That's a great long-term strategy that would have won the approval of John Birchers.
And keep wondering why people like me now are forced to vote Dem 100% of the time--apparently, even for our next senator from Illinois.
Actually, asshole, I've studied Stalin's reign in depth, including some time spent in Russia doing just that. I am pretty well versed on the various totalitarian and near-totalitarian regimes of the 20th century, though I could use more knowledge about Mao, as well as the Romanian fascist movement that allied itself with Hitler.
I even learned a tiny bit of Russian so I could better understand Stalin's reign of terror and attempt to read at least a few of his documents/letters without translation.
Have you?
Yeah, that's what I thought.
Bet you don't even know the nose story involving his dead wife.
Or about the fresh red roses left everyday.
Or even his real name.
Or what his fake name means and why he took it.
Or why Molotov rose to his inner circle.
So yeah, lecture me about how I took my idea from Frank Rich.
And do so while puking up ideas clearly stolen from Glenn Beck, too.
These comments are quite telling and typical of liberals. You people think you are moderate, your points of view are reasonable, and that everyone should think like you. Anyone who dares oppose health care or suggest that govt cut spending is a rabid, right-winger full of racial hatred. You give Republicans advice on how they should build their party and the candidates they should run. Your advice to them consists of recruiting candidates who think just like all of you. You wouldn't vote for them anyway, but they should recruit liberal, I mean "moderate", candidates so they can be more like the Democrats.
To listen to you people, you would think that the Democrat Party is still popular, that a majority of the country likes Obama's policies, that Independants aren't flocking away from O-Dumbo, and that you didn't just lose elections in Va and NJ. Obama was supposed to have built a coalition. He was supposed to unify. He was turning Virginia blue. What a joke. I'm grateful that people are waking up and seeing Obama for the disgrace that he is.
How about a decision on Afghanistan now, Barry? The elections are over, so that won't get in the way. You can stop playing politics with the lives of the troops.
To listen to you people, you would think that the Democrat Party is still popular, that a majority of the country likes Obama's policies, that Independants aren't flocking away from O-Dumbo, and that you didn't just lose elections in Va and NJ.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, this marks the sixth consecutive election cycle in which both New Jersey and Virginia elected governors that were of the opposite party as the president. Six straight times, dating back to 1989 and spanning four presidents. There is nothing particularly newsworthy about the results of the NJ and VA elections.
There was no way an unpopular Wall Street governor like Jon Corzine would be reelected. Creigh Deeds was a weak candidate from rural Virginia who never broke through in the solidly blue stronghold of northern Virginia. Neither of these results were upsets. Again, not newsworthy.
Exit polls showed that solid majorities of both states' voters didn't vote the way they did because of the president. So these elections weren't the coup that the mainstream media seem hell-bent on making this seem like.
People are "flocking away" from Obama, because he hasn't been progressive enough. If anything he's been too much like George Bush.
Btw: I see you mentioned "government spending" again how are those numbers coming. We're still waiting for you to show us a realistic way to cut taxes and cut enough government spending to balance the state budget.
Troll.
Hey MM, where's those links you promised? Google didn't help?
Kirk will get Palins blessing.. or he won't. Either way, who gives a shit, he's still a Republican. The fact that she has been jacked up to that position says everything about the state of the Republicans today. The Democrats need a strong candidate to become a strong Senator. Thats not Gianouliosis. David Hoffman (not the loser from NY, the ex-inspector from Chicago) looks like a better candidate, just doesn't have the money and connections. Seems to have the balls and brains.
MM is fat. Very, very fat.
and smells like old cheese.
You people.
Matilda, you may have a point about purists driving people away from the GOP.
Even with that problem, I feel that fiscal conservatives have to stick to their guns. I don't think that demanding "purity" on fiscal issues is a bad thing.
Note that many fiscal conservatives would be considered "socially liberal" or even "libertarian." These fiscal conservatives are not driving people away. It is more likely the Bible-thumpers and pro-war neoconservatives who are keeping moderates from coming over to the GOP.
"Even with that problem, I feel that fiscal conservatives have to stick to their guns. I don't think that demanding "purity" on fiscal issues is a bad thing."
Good point, but why didn't you guys do this during Medicare Part D and cutting taxes during two wars? As well, fiscal conservatism also means, in my view, recognizing when and how to invest now to produce returns later that will make the country stronger, don't you think? (And I am well aware of how national debt has sunk empires as mighty as ours, including the ones the Brits had for a few hundred years, so I do take this issue very seriously.)
And the social conservatives are trying to gain more control in the GOP, so let's not discount that.
"It is more likely the Bible-thumpers and pro-war neoconservatives who are keeping moderates from coming over to the GOP. "
I would agree with that. As for the "pro-war neoconservatives," it's not the "pro-war" part I object to, only the "neo-conservative" part. Neo conservatives have proven themselves wrong on nearly all aspects of war planning so far. They would do well to study the wars and diplomacy of Otto von Bismarck to better learn how one can be tough and smart.
As well, fiscal conservatism also means, in my view, recognizing when and how to invest now to produce returns later that will make the country stronger, don't you think?
Yes, yes, yes. It may come as a surprise, but I was a Republican until the war in Iraq started. A pro-gay rights, pro-choice Republican, but a Republican nonetheless. (I have a strong libertarian streak.) I supported George W. Bush in 2000.
I consider myself fiscally conservative, which is part of the reason why I left the party. The Bush Congress, taking its cue from the "deficits don't matter" Reaganites, flushed the concept of fiscal conservatism down the toilet.
Back to the sentence I just highlighted, that sentiment is why I support a single payer health care system, because it's the fiscally conservative thing to do. Other countries prove that, in the long run, such a system is simply more cost-effective. And being fiscally conservative shouldn't mean "don't spend anything, no matter what."
The other thing that continues to baffle me is this notion that we can somehow pay down the national debt while lowering taxes. That doesn't work in my household, so how could it work on a multi-trillion dollar scale? Fiscal conservatism also shouldn't mean "no new taxes ever, regardless of circumstance."
And the social conservatives are trying to gain more control in the GOP, so let's not discount that.
Absolutely. Those people are what keep me out. The medical decision for a woman to have an abortion is none of the government's business. (If abortion were a man's issue, it would have been legalized a century ago.) Likewise, that the government can dictate the genders of a couple who wish to enter the secular contract of marriage in order to acquire special rights and privileges relative to each other is a direct violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment. Far too many social conservatives are merely theocrats by a different name.
The bottom line is that social conservatism is antithetical to the freedom that Republicans profess to espouse.
I think we would agree on many things about fiscal conservatism and the future of conservative politics in the USA, then.
"These fiscal conservatives are not driving people away. It is more likely the Bible-thumpers and pro-war neoconservatives who are keeping moderates from coming over to the GOP."
Agreed. At least, in my own case. When I lived in Ohio I was a supporter of George Voinovich. He turned out to be a great mayor for Cleveland, then governor and later senator. Its too bad the party is being dragged down by the fringes.
you people are all the same :-)