Kirk Asks for Palin Endorsement?

[Lunar]

edit: see a link like eight posts down for some important updates

http://thecapitolfaxblog.com/2009/11/04/mark-kirk-asks-for-sarah-palins-endorsement

I'm just linking it because I couldn't do its format justice.  Just for those not in the know, Rich Miller is widely considered one of the most knowledgeable and well-sourced people in IL politics.  

[War on Want]

lol

[JohnnyLongtorso]

So did Mark Kirk get bitten by a Club for Growther and now he's turning into one?

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Kirk has basically just committed political seppuku here.

[Lunar]

So did Mark Kirk get bitten by a Club for Growther and now he's turning into one?

He's scared of his primary.  He doesn't want to be Dede part II.

But he shouldn't be.  If he just openly tells his base: hey, look, I'm pro-environment, I'm pro-life, but I'm passionately against deficit spending, I opposed the stimulus, and I don't support government intervention in the healthcare market [basically all true], he should be able to win them over with his economic conservatism that he's already established with his record.

He's not a libertarian, but he has a wonderfully [for him] suburban record that's been groomed over a long period of time, I think his odds of winning overall would be highest if he sticks to his guns, keeps impressing the Tribune editorial board, and takes the gamble on the primary in order to emerge better on afterwards.

I'm sure he's scared that even if he wins the primary, he'll have his base disappointed, but two points:
1- He can raise far more money without them than with them
2- If he chooses to highlight certain conservative principles that can already be factually proven by his opponents [healthcare, stimulus, debt, foreign policy hawkishness], he can get a lot of volunteers and support.  Even though the GOP hates the abortionists and the gays, the GOP primary voters are going to be thinking about the economy not the culture wars....

seriously, Kirk has a great record as a veteran, if just spends, I don't know, the $5 million dollars on messaging he's gonna spend to win his primary, he could just spend that money highlighting his military record and win easily.  I'm REALLY perplexed by his campaign, and I have a feeling they might not be stupid, I just don't see why they aren't stupid.

[Lunar]

I don't know if Kirk's campaign team is just feeling skittish or what.  I know he has a primary challenge, but you don't see Carly Fiorina seeking George Bush's endorsement.  If they know things that we do not, this *could* be bad news for moderate Republicans running for open seats like Simmons, Crist and Kirk (Castle seems to be safe no matter what?)

[cannonia]

This is the biggest exaggeration I've heard tonight.  (Well actually PiT's post is even worse, but...)

This is a smart move by Mark Kirk, and the Washington Post piece explains why:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And rather than "begging" for an endorsement, Kirk goes as far as suggesting what words Palin should utter in his support.  But hey, perception is reality, right?  So spin away and see what gets repeated, I guess.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Considering that Kirk has basically a 100% pro-choice voting record he's not going to get away with claiming to be pro-life.

And I agree with PiT.

[Lunar]

And rather than "begging" for an endorsement, Kirk goes as far as suggesting what words Palin should utter in his support.  But hey, perception is reality, right?  So spin away and see what gets repeated, I guess.

The only time I've seen "begging" was the alexi campaigns formal statement on the manner, and yes, that is 500% spin, like all campaign statements.  That was nowhere in the commentary on this forum or by Rich Miller in my link.   You're the cat spinning by choosing to latch onto that word.

Now, if you want to debate if this was a smart move for the general election in Illinois, especially given how easily it can be spun, I'm down.  Or if his campaign isn't acting incredibly skittish and dancing around some of the issues, I'm down.

I doubt it's going to be a dealbreaker in the general election, but it is a bit of a symptom of a broader problem I'm seeing in the Kirk campaign... 

[Lunar]

actual memo:

http://thecapitolfaxblog.com/2009/11/05/cillizza-bumbles-no-explicit-palin-endorsement-request/

note the URL

[Rob]

We need to destroy this asshole. Get Palin to endorse him, then replay the (undoubtedly)crazy-ass footage over and over in the general election. We won't let Sam Spade's candidate get elected to a federal office in Illinois.

[Lunar]

I'm gonna edit the title of this thread to include a question mark in it or something so it is more representative of reality.

We need to destroy this asshole. Get Palin to endorse him, then replay the (undoubtedly)crazy-ass footage over and over in the general election. We won't let Sam Spade's candidate get elected to a federal office in Illinois.

Two things:
1- Chill out.  
2- It seems from the link above that Kirk was more concerned with not having Palin endorse his opponent while in Chicago for Oprah and making his race be the center of the national tea party movement.  Kirk wanted to point out to Palin his conservative economic and foreign policy credentials while obviously glossing over some of his, I don't want to call them liberal, well, wealthy suburbanite social views.
3- Kirk still is pandering in this memo and seems to be a soul lost for identity, which is *STRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANGE* because he has probably an 80% of winning his primary based solely upon his carefully constructed political record, fundraising skills, and top-notch military service.  As the link notes, he MAY be concerned with some wealthy Hoffman-esque andidate going Kamakaze against him in order to steal, maybe <4% from his right flank, which would have a high chance of dooming him in the general.  I'm not sure what his campaign is thinking.  I've always held the opinion that they should hold strong on Kirk's opposition to healthcare, deficits, and the stimulus, broadcast his Masters in Economics, and trust that the teapartiers aren't gonna teabag him over abortion and the environment.
4- He really doesn't seem like too much of an asshole.  Previously he has displayed pretty insane political skills in navigating his solidly Democratic district.

I'm going to tilt this race to likely Democrat until I see some kind of spark of competence from the Kirk campaign.  If y'all are lucky you may get a 25 page paper from me which would hypothetically advise the Kirk campaign at some point...probably in late December.  Once he shows competence I'll switch it to lean or tossup.

I also have yet to figure out why the White House is trying to get someone besides Alexi to win this race...inviting Madigan to the White House to try and recruit her and then having Axe's firm back a challenger to Alexi under the electability banner....if I had a guess, I'd say that Rahm and/or Axe don't like him and don't trust him to win the general.

[Ogre Mage]

This was a major unforced error which will have ramifications in the general election.  IL is a strong Dem state and the attack ads about this practically make themselves.  Whoever the IL Sen. Dem nominee is will not let this go.  Personally, I have never thought Kirk's chances were good and now they are becoming remote.  Given how some seem to talk about Kirk having political talent, he is not showing it.

[Lunar]

This was a major unforced error which will have ramifications in the general election.  IL is a strong Dem state and the attack ads about this practically make themselves.  Whoever the IL Sen. Dem nominee is will not let this go.  Personally, I have never thought Kirk's chances were good and now they are becoming remote.  Given how some seem to talk about Kirk having political talent, he is not showing it.

I think from Miller's update above yours, that he seems flailing but certainly not "remote" in his chances as both he and his opponents ramp up their campaigns, lots of chances for campaign missteps that will be more relevant to the voters before election day.
 

And, it's important to note that amazing political talent does not necessarily mean that your campaign staff and advisers are brilliant...they seem clearly worried by an attack on their right flank in the general election, as any election Kirk wins is almost certainly going to be a narrow one, and I'm not sure if there's a solution for it besides doing what he's doing now: privately sucking up to conservative figures so they don't endorse his rival to amp up their own political profiles...but that's not the solution either.  He's strongly giving off the political persona of being valueless and with his finger to the wind.  like I said, the proper solution is to selectively embrace key conservative issues (foreign policy, economic hot button things) but also his centrist persona, and let the chips fall where they may, if this paragraph has made no sense, that's intentional

[cannonia]

 

And rather than "begging" for an endorsement, Kirk goes as far as suggesting what words Palin should utter in his support.  But hey, perception is reality, right?  So spin away and see what gets repeated, I guess.

The only time I've seen "begging" was the alexi campaigns formal statement on the manner, and yes, that is 500% spin, like all campaign statements.  That was nowhere in the commentary on this forum or by Rich Miller in my link.   You're the cat spinning by choosing to latch onto that word.

Now, if you want to debate if this was a smart move for the general election in Illinois, especially given how easily it can be spun, I'm down.  Or if his campaign isn't acting incredibly skittish and dancing around some of the issues, I'm down.

I doubt it's going to be a dealbreaker in the general election, but it is a bit of a symptom of a broader problem I'm seeing in the Kirk campaign... 

Yes, "begging" is merely quoted from a Democratic campaign.  However, the tenor of the comments on this thread is similar.  Many of you Democrats dislike Sarah Palin, but the fact remains that she is a mainstream politician with a considerable following (or at least considerable press coverage).  I maintain that it's a smart move to get an early endorsement from her (especially in a Republican primary), if for no other reason than to deny her endorsement to any of his rivals.

[Lunar]

I understand all that, if you read my posts in this thread, I have shifted largely from mocking Kirk to defending him.  However, if you look at the swing constituencies in New York, say perhaps even Kirk's own district (which is more conservative than Illinois as a whole, despite being very Democratic), he does not want to be associated with Palin.

Yes, he needs to have a motivated base, but his base can be motivated without Palin fairly easily.

And yes, he was more interested in simply not having Palin endorsing his rival than endorsing himself, to his defense.   But his memo and campaign in general has shown a lack of identity, odd for a candidate who has a carefully constructed one.  He has plenty of time to get that nailed down.

[Ogre Mage]

Yes, "begging" is merely quoted from a Democratic campaign.  However, the tenor of the comments on this thread is similar.  Many of you Democrats dislike Sarah Palin, but the fact remains that she is a mainstream politician with a considerable following (or at least considerable press coverage).  I maintain that it's a smart move to get an early endorsement from her (especially in a Republican primary), if for no other reason than to deny her endorsement to any of his rivals.

Dislike has nothing to do with it.  This is Illinois, not South Carolina.  Mark Kirk is not going to overcome the large Dem partisan advantange in the President's home state by seeking the endorsement of the person who said the President pals around with terrorists and lied that his health care plan has "death panels." 

I do see Kirk's thinking here -- if you cannot get past the primary then you cannot win the general election.  But in Illinois, the drawback far outweights the potential benefit.  He has just handed a significant weapon to his opponent.

[Ogre Mage]

Hm, the Chicago Sun-Times thought this was a bad idea:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/commentary/1868099,CST-EDT-edit06a.article

Given that he spoke negatively about Palin before, it is rather ... odd that he is interested in her endorsement now.

[You kip if you want to...]

*Cue dramatic piano melody*

[Ogre Mage]

From Lynn Sweet's blog at the Sun Times:

Maybe in the end the Stupak-Pitts amendment the House included in the health reform bill approved Saturday night--placing restrictions on insurance paying for abortions--won't survive in the Senate version and/or when the two chambers work out differences in the legislation.

But Illinois Senate hopeful Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) damaged his 100 per cent abortion rights voting record by supporting Stupak-Pitts. Presuming Kirk wins the GOP primary--a contest where Kirk is the extreme front-runner--Kirk handed Democrats a general election issue. On Tuesday, Kirk was kicked by the National Abortion Rights League for his vote.
An e-mailed to a Kirk spokesman was not returned.

Update Tuesday afternoon.


Statement from Kirk campaign manager, Eric Elk:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

NARAL statement....
Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, today denounced the anti-choice health-care vote of Rep. and U.S. Senate candidate Mark Kirk (R-Ill.).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2009/11/mark_kirk_kicked_by_abortions.html

[Lunar]

Kirks support of Stupak makes sense from the perspective of arguing it as "federal funding for abortion" but it's completely illogical and crazy for a GOP moderate ["moderate?"] who had a %100 pro-choice record from NARAL to support that amendment.  Kirk, along with a lot of previously 100% pro-choice Democrats who voted for Stupak, seem to be discovering who they really are lately.  It's like we have a 3/5ths pro-life majority in the House as long as people don't actually care about the legislation they are voting on!

and I'm not a big pro-choicer, it's rather hard to get me into an argument about abortion, I'm just baffled how people with perfect NARAL ratings can argue supporting Stupak.

[Ogre Mage]

Off topic, my understanding of the Stupak-Pitts amendment is this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As someone who is pretty strongly pro-choice, I disagree with the first part of the amendment, but I realize that is what we have to do to get health care passed.  It's pretty much in line with the old Hyde Amendment anyway.  The second part -- "prohibits individuals who receive affordability credits from purchasing a plan that provides elective abortions" is the really bad part.  I believe that means anyone who receives these "affordability credits" cannot use their own private money to join a plan which provides abortion services.  This is a terribly restrictive clause for lower and middle class women and should be jettisoned in the final bill.  If that language remains in the final bill, I don't think I could support it.

[Landslide Lyndon]

I guess Mike Castle is another candidate who's going to suffer for this vote.
Bhoener and Cantor chose to make John Cornyn's life much more difficult in order to please the teabaggers.