)
Posted on 07/10/2009 1:38:47 PM PDT by heiss
Update, 4:17 p.m.: Although Kirk has already told several national Republicans today that he will not run for the Senate, there is an ongoing effort now to convince him to re-think that decision, according to several sources close to the discussions. Pressure is now being brought to bear on Andy McKenna, who, according to knowledgeable sources, had told Republicans insiders that he would not run if Kirk got into the race. Once Kirk signaled he was indeed running, however, McKenna reconsidered and made clear he would in fact stay in.
(Excerpt) Read more at voices.washingtonpost.com ...
Not sure if the McKenna is any better, though. Illinois Senate race is winnable as Dems don't have strong contender either..Blacks may be pissed off since Burris was forced to retire and whitey may get the seat.
GOP must find a strong candidate.
Don’t let the door hit ya.
By who, Arlen Specter? How RINO do you have to be to support Kirk?
You would need to drink a shitload of Romulan Ale for this Kirk to look attractive.
“there is an ongoing effort now to convince him to re-think that decision...”
WHY? Are we afraid we will lose our huge majority? Let’s just focus on being the loyal opposition, making our case to the public, stuff these liberal bastards at every chance and be conservatives again. Please! It has worked for us every time we do it...then we try to be all things to all people and we are back in the crapper.
If Kirk isn’t going to run, there must be a reason. Supremely arrogant, self-absorbed political hacks don’t give up on higher office just for the heck of it.
And this is shocking to Kirk & Co? did they not listen to John Boehner on the floor of the house? Did Kirk not realize how critically important this bill was the vote against?
Any chance Chris Lauzen would run? Or Dan Rutherford?
It’s a close one, but I’d take Kirk over Specter, Snowe, Collins.
Oh heck, Kirk (my former congressman) is struggling to hang on to his congressional seat.
I didn’t know any Republican in my district who voted for him other than he was a “Republican” vote in Congress. But he’s lost that too.
And, I don’t think it can get past anything the Daley machine and Obama set up.
Finally someone in Illinois showing some resemblance of intelligence by sending this boy packing...
Dead in the water. What a p.o.s.
After the debacle with Jack Ryan's Senate campaign, it's best just not to have any candidate that can be even remotely linked to Star Trek...
Hopefully, somebody has some good dirt on him.
Illinois is super liberal. Republicans have little chance of winning any state wide elected office there. Illinois = Obama.
Too bad. After Specter switched parties the Maine sisters are looking for a new friend.
Ping
What if Mike Ditka ran?
Fire the RNC and all national Republican officials.
:)
Does anyone have a picture of Andy McKenna?
*ping*
Posted in the last hour:
Kirk still running — with one big caveat
http://www.politico.com/blogs/scorecard/0709/Kirk_still_running__with_one_big_caveat.html
The latest on Mark Kirk running for Senate: still in. What will McKenna do?
By
Lynn Sweet
on July 10, 2009 4:25 PM
There have been several reports Friday that Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) was not going to run for the Senate. The latest I have from Kirk's operation is that Kirk is still contemplating a bid. The bump here is that GOP Illinois Party Chief Andy McKenna—who had been recruiting Kirk to run—is now mulling a race himself. Kirk and McKenna met with members of the Illinois House delegation yesterday. The delegation is leaning heavily towards backing Kirk, one of their own.
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2009/07/the_latest_on_mark_kirk_runnin.html
Washington Post Kirk Story WRONG
Illinois Review has learned from Republican Party sources that the Washington Post’s “Fix” story is NOT true. In fact, members of the Illinois Congressional Delegation have started to endorse Mark Kirk for U.S. Senate, including Rep. Judy Biggert and Governor Jim Edgar.
http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2009/07/washington-post-story-not-true.html
As a Conservative voter here in the People's DemoKratiK RepuliK of Illannoyed,it don't matter one iota which of them runs, neither will get my vote.
Here’s hoping both those slimy RINO Combiners form a circular firing squad.
Zot the RINOs.
Our illustrious Illinois GOP party chairman:
I disagree with Bob that McKenna would be a weak Senate candidate. LaHood recruited him personally to "take out" Fitzgerald. McKenna fooled a lot of conservatives who backed him in 2004 for Senate and 2005 for Chairman. As a first time candidate he came in 4th place (in a field of 9 candidates), but came in 2nd downstate. Before McKenna was chairman, we kind of had a game of "musical chairs" with our state party chairman -- each of them (Williamson, Daniels, Ingemunson, MacDougal, Topinka, etc.) would last about a year on average, and be kicked out the moment Illinois Republicans lost some office on their watch. Under McKenna, we've probably lost more offices than the last four chairman combined, but he's completely consolidated his support with the GOP establishment and manages to have complete control of the party for five years now. No one has dared challenge him for the chairmanship.
If McKenna ran, he's portray himself as a conservative again (anti-bailout, anti-cap-and-trade) and all the conservative organizations in this state (NRA, Right-to-Life, etc.) would be on board. Plus he's from an extremely wealthy family and can spent zillions of his own money.
Of course if you meet the guy he makes Bob Dole seem exciting.
Between McKenna, Kirk, and Obama, Ray LaThug is going to have a hard time deciding which one he loves more. Poor guy.
My guess is Kirk formally kicks off his Senate campaign next week, and the state and national party clear the field to anoint McKenna as Kirk's successor in the House. McKombine would probably agree to those terms.
yeah..on the other hand..which one you would take:
a) Burris or some other 100% liberal, who is guaranteed to vote for every liberal bill
b) 50% liberal RINO, who at least quite often votes against those liberal bills
i would take the 50% liberal RINO anyday vs 100% liberal. there are a lot of important things that RINO would support..
but i’m still fantasizing that a well-funded, serious conservative would emerge. though from the links here i see this is not likely to be the case.
Hey, it’s Nikola Tesla’s birthday, too.
Kirk is, at best, a moderate Democrat. We could probably just keep Burris there and he'd do less damage. Kirk would have much more clout to make Obama's socialist agenda "bipartisan"
I mean for heavens’ sake, Kirk is to the left of Chuck Percy, the former leftist RINO Senator. There were a number of Conservatives who voted for Paul Simon in ‘84 just to run that asshat out of office (much like how they did with Lieberman over Weicker in ‘88 in CT).
Thanks so much for your help.
That’s why I posted it. :)
I honestly think that if Kirk gets in, we'll be wishing Burris was still there within a few months. Burris might be a socialist but at least he's low-key and has zero clout to enact anything.
Is he a Republican?
I believe so. I think they wanted him to run the year Obama ran.
You might recall Percy was one of those up n’comer types from the business sector in the ‘60s who really coveted the Presidency (very similar in style and ideology to Slick Willard). He actually, however, took a reverse course to the Slickster. The crooked Gov. Otto Kerner looked quite vulnerable for 1964, so Percy used his fortune to beat another up and comer, State Treasurer William Scott, in the GOP primary (Scott, of course, has enough of a story to tell separately). Percy got caught in the undertow of the anti-GOP landslide of that November (although Kerner won by an unimpressive 52-48%). He opted for the “consolation prize” of a Senate seat and beat the venerable old liberal Sen. Paul Douglas by a wide 11% margin on the anti-LBJ landslide of ‘66. Had Percy won the Governorship in ‘64, it’s quite conceivable he might’ve ended up as Nixon’s running mate in ‘68... and we know where that would’ve led.
Two years after Congressman Tom Corcoran failed to knock Percy off in the ‘84 GOP primary, I remember, was when I started to get more actively involved in politics (that in high school), and specifically became a Republican. I had been under the naive assumption that ALL Republicans were Reaganites and had no idea liberal scumbags equally infested the party as well, acting as termites to the Conservative cause. We still see some of that naivete on FR with the “any Republican is better than any Democrat” attitude, failing to take into consideration how some liberal Republicans can cause far worse damage. Kirk seems the epitome of that kind of destructive RINO who will relish inflicting damage to the Conservative agenda, especially after he gets the Senate seat, and is one reason why he should be just as vigorously opposed as we did with Percy back in ‘84.
I don’t know what to think about it.
As for Andy McKenna, he’s a largely unknown quantity to me.
Speaking of Senator Percy, check out this tidbit from McKenna's bio:
McKenna earned a bachelor degree in business administration from the University of Notre Dame in 1979. During his senior year, two events occurred that stimulated his interest in politics and the economy In the fall of 1978, Senator Chuck Percy was in a tough re-election campaign. Late in the campaign McKenna's parents hosted an event for Percy at their home. Eight United States Senators attended the event. This gave McKenna the chance to speak with each and, in particular, to spend time visiting with Senator John Heinz of Pennsylvania. Heinz was the first MBA ever elected to the United States Senate. At the time, McKenna was applying to both law and graduate business schools. Heinz told him, "If you want to go into politics, go to MBA school".
http://www.weareillinois.org/learn/chairman.aspx
I think USConservative is right, both McKenna and Kirk owe their political career to the combine. McKenna's political positions aren't nearly as liberal as Kirk (McKenna actually ran as one of the conservative candidates in 2004), and even McKenna denounced Kirk Dillard for appearing in Obama campaign ads, so McKenna would be a step up from Kirk. However, there's no way in hell I'd vote for McKenna in the primary since he was LaHood's hand-picked choice to "take out" Fitzgerald, and was quite willing at the time to run against him. I might hold my nose for McKenna over a RAT in November, it came down to that.
Here’s the laetst now:
http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2009/07/kirk_trying_to.php
It’s enough to give a political observer whiplash.
I would not go that far. Illinois has a very peculiar mix when it comes to the two parties. There is a very powerful country-club Republican establishment like Kirk, Topinka and the former Gov Thompson. However, many of the state democrats from blue collar and rural districts are socially conservative like Lipinski and Costello and former Sen Dixon.
However, its troubling that in the last 20 years the state went from being swing in Presidential races to a solid Blue.
Good points.
Most of these losers usually say they want to “devote more time to the family.” This bum wants to devote more time to passing Cap and Trade.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.