Posted on 11/04/2009 11:47:48 PM PST by kingattax
Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) confirmed Wednesday that he reached out to influential Republican insider Fred Malek and sought his counsel on how to court former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s endorsement for his Senate bid.
As first reported by the Washington Post, Kirk sent a memo to Malek seeking advice on how to acquire a “quick and decisive” endorsement from Palin urging Republicans to embrace Kirk as the “lead candidate” in Illinois.
Kirk acknowledged the authenticity of the memo to POLITICO. The Republican’s campaign said that it has sent materials to Palin, though Kirk spokesman Eric Elk downplayed the significance of the move.
“The Kirk campaign provided the governor’s team a briefing including talking points on Congressman Kirk and the Illinois Senate Race,” Elk said. “The memo was like many others regularly prepared for high-profile visitors, pundits and media. The briefing provided details on the race and only requested supportive comments.”
Malek, in an email, acknowledged receiving the memo, but said he did not advise Kirk on how to land the former governor’s endorsement.
Palin spokeswoman Meg Stapleton did not return a request for comment.
The endorsement of Palin might serve to insulate the Illinois moderate from criticism on the right that he is not conservative enough. Palin attracted attention recently for offering her imprimatur to Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman in the Nov. 3 New York special election. Palin’s endorsement was followed by a flood of other Republican endorsements for Hoffman.
Despite Hoffman’s loss, Palin applauded the conservative third-party candidate Wednesday on her Facebook page for having the “courage” to run.
“The race for New York’s 23rd District is not over, just postponed until 2010,” Palin wrote. “The real victors in this election are the ordinary men and women who voted for positive change and a return to fiscal sanity. Your voices have been heard.”
Kirk, a moderate, may also face a third-party challenge from the right, after fellow Republican Eric Wallace made clear in dropping out of contention for the GOP nomination that he may mount a Hoffman-like run. Kirk is also facing opposition on his right flank from several Republican candidates, including Andy Martin, who is best known in state political circles for having filed a lawsuit in Hawaii calling for the release of President Barack Obama’s birth certificate.
“Too much is at stake for the citizens of Illinois in this race, and I have decided to put my personal ambitions aside to prevent the splitting of ‘true’ conservative and Christian votes in the primary,” Wallace said in leaving the race, according to the Associated Press. “Defeating Kirk has to take first priority because he is neither an economic nor a social conservative.”
Jonathan Allen contributed to this report.
I love the headline!
IIRC, Kirk voted for the cap-and-tax bill. I sent him a stern letter challenging his so-called Republican credentials.
Hell no. voting for cap and trade is unforgivable. That issue is way too big
Veeeeeeeery interesting little tidbit here from the article. The stuff about Kirk begging for a Palin endorsement has already been posted on FR (boy Marky is sure starting to sound desperate), but the possibility of Wallace switching to the general election hasn't been publicized.
Suddenly, his reasons for suddenly dropping out the day of the filing deadline are becoming crystal clear. Wallace had the best life story and the strongest ability to articulate conservative values of all the conservative primary challengers to Kirk. But a small group of self-proclaimed "conservative leaders" (they haven't won anything in Illinois, having backed people like Oberweis and John Cox in the past) recruited Patrick Hughes, a good guy with lots of personal wealth who could vastly outspend Eric in the primary but who is a political novice. With both of them on the ballot, there's no one the conservative base would have enough votes to beat Kirk.
Illinois state election laws has a "sore loser" clause that doesn't allow you to mount a general election bid if you've already lost once this election cycle on a primary ballot. Wallace couldn't do anything as long as the "conservative leaders" were pouring all their money and support to Hughes, even if the grassroots GOP voters and national conservatives liked Wallace better. Solution? Drop out and let the "wealthy outsider" have his best shot to take out Kirk in the primary.
A general election between two limousine liberal elitist white guys and a successful black conservative who rose up from poverty would be a very exciting once-in-a-lifetime events. And like Hoffman, Wallace is pretty much a lifelong Republican whose "third party bid" only exists because the GOP failed to nominate an actual Republican in the Republican primary. Wallace's "conservative Republican" credential are impeccable -- he's even Vice Chairman of the Cook County Republican Party (a post he'd be jeopardizing by running as an Independent in November)
The constitution party has no one waiting in the wings. Chad Koppie, who ran against George Ryan and Steve Sauerberg in the general, has said he's willing to do if no one else will, but he's pushing 80 and his statements have fallen on deaf ears.
Third parties traditionally do very poorly in Illinois, the one exception being the greenie who had the luck to be on the ballot against Topinka and Blago, receiving 11% of the vote as a result. A third party bid by Wallace in Nov. 2010 could be similar as NY-23 -- getting Republicans, conservative-leaning indies, anti-combine Dems, and libertarians on the same page -- and drive RINO Kirk to a dismal third place.
Certainly this new development is something we need to keep our eye on.
Kirk already dissed her today, being asked if Sarah were qualified to be President, he said “I would have chosen someone else.” Plus he is a RINO, supports Cap and Tax, basically he is for everything Sarah is against, so I don’t believe for one second she will endorse him
Ha! This clown would have an easier time finding ice water in hell.
Agreed. Nice analysis. But the Constitution Party may pull a surprise out of its Illinois hat. Depends on certain ... things. Can’t say more about it, but remember, you heard it here first.
BTW, Randy Stufflebeam got the most write-in votes of any Illinois write-in ever in 2006, way ahead of Nader. He was the CP gubernatorial candidate, but didn’t have the signatures for ballot access. We’re still struggling for ballot access (its brutal being a third party here), but it’s a different environment now, and we are cautiously optimistic that we will make it this time with signatures to spare. Volunteers are welcome.
Mark, men who ask this kind of question never get real women to like them. The best you'll be able to do by being an obsequious metrosexual is a woman not worth liking, who really doesn't like you anyway. Sack up, step aside, and let a conservative run.
Kirk,
The Tea Party Express is coming to an election near you!
And thereby hangs the tale. Let me preface this by assuring you I am not being critical of you in any way shape or form. You have described a problem that we are going to have to figure out how to solve if we ever hope to have conservative principles once again guiding our country.
For you it's cap and trade. For someone else it's abortion. Then there are those for whom it's amnesty. The list goes on and on. One by one conservatives rule out a potential candidate based on something the candidate does or doesn't support. The cumulative effect is that we end up fighting among ourselves absolutely destroying the chances of the last man standing to wage a successful campaign. The opponent simply runs ads featuring all the bad things said during the primary.
It's a real problem and I am guilty of it myself.
I saw a post the other day where someone said they really liked Sarah Palin, but were waiting to see her stand on amnesty, and if she were for it the poster said he would support her.
Usually I'm full of bright ideas, but this one stumps me. Maybe a ‘get out jail free card’ approach where conservatives agree to give every candidate a pass on one thing with which they can't agree with the candidate. But almost every conservative has that one cause or belief on which they simply can't, or won't, compromise. And we're right back where we started.
You know, they still don’t get it. Hoffman wasn’t just a wakeup call, as much as they are trying to dismiss it. It was/is the alarm clock that is still buzzing loudly even though they threw it across the room and covered their heads with their pillows.
Americans are sick to death of party politics that promote parties instead of the COUNTRY and our Conservative values first. We are not following them anymore. And they had better join with us or be left behind.
Earlier, after sort of tuning Hannity out for awhile for his neverending hero worship of Gingrich, McCain, and Romney, I thought maybe after Tuesday, Hannity would finally stop with the Gingrich promo tour, but lo and behold, his FIRST guest up was none other than the discredited Newt hisself.
Hannity was almost sheepish in “offering” the newt a platform to “redeem” himself.
I threw a shoe at the TV and switched to a Batman movie. I have just had it with these so-called Reagan Conservatives who are so worshipful of those in the GOP who are anything but, and then carry on as if it means something just because they SAY so.
Nice background reporting. Well done.
Put a Moose suit on and run around the woods.
Wouldn’t work or grab a hunters attention .... no gonads present.
Not tooo many “geldings” present in the moose demographics .... plenty of them in Congress on the “R” side.
This has made news and as I compose this opus (4:01 am 11/5/09) WLS radio news is covering it.
If any FR is thinking of running for office they should check out this page in my website; http://www.theusmat.com/home.htm
FUN WITH FIGURES
What has been glossed over in the NY 23rd congressional race are these facts. If this election went off like a Chicago aldermanic race there would have been a runoff between Hoffman (46% of the vote) and Owens (49% of the vote). Hoffman should have never conceded so quickly but should have waited for the official announcement to drive home the point that Owens didn’t have the 50+1 vote plurality.
In addition there is no such thing as an original 100 year old congressional distrct. Through the years remaps due to the ensuing censuses which followed. The NY 23rd has had 11 Democratic Congressmen, the last of which was William McNulty in 1993.
These facts were dutifully obfuscated in the reporting of the result of the NY 23rd by the MSM socialist minions. Those reporters who obligingly repeated this desperate spin of the result of the vote in the 23rd should get “called” on their reporting and be given a verbal black eye.
Mark, quit trying to use people. Next, take a stand and make it stand. Don’t be a wiesle. Do your own campaigning and is she shows up good, if not, you have work to do and no time to whine.
You raise some good points, but there are two things that you should keep in mind.
Some people are single-issue voters. Now, most of them are Democrats, since the GOP tends to attract voters that agree with the party on a majority of issues, but if someone chooses to be a single-issue voter thst’s their God-given right.
Also, many conservatives may view Kirk’s vote in favor of cap-and-trade as “unforgivable” because *Kirk is liberal on social issues*, and pretty much his only claim to being a Republican was his supposed economic conservatism. With Kirk supporting the tax-raising cap-and-trade system that would imperil the jobs of millions of Americans it shoulf be clear to all that he brings very little to the table for conservatives.
There is another guy running against Kirk, his name is Patrick Hughes and he is a staunch conservative patriot. Anyone from Illinois check out Hughes please, I think he is what we are looking for to return some decency and common sense conservatism back to Illinois. I am tired of our state Californicating...let’s change it!
Mark Kirk is a liberal, it’s as simple as that. He voted for Cap ‘N Tax. He is an ardent supporter of gun control. He takes no issue with abortion. If one viewed his voting record along with other members of the House, and the (R) and (D) were not shown next to the names, one would necessarily conclude that he was a Dim just by the company he kept.
Sarah would be wise to ignore his supplications.
While McNulty represented a district numbered the NY-23 in the 1980s, it could by no means be described as the predecessor of the current NY-23 (McNulty’s CD was based in Albany and didn’t include any part of the current NY-23). Our own fieldmarshaldj gave a full explanation on the predecessors of the current NY-23 here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2378248/posts?page=75#75
I have been wondering the same thing..now if I can get her husband to divorce her I might stand a better chance...hope my wife does not read this!!!
LOL!!!
FR Post Of The Day.
Wow that was great..it should be of the week!!!where can you buy moose scent????
Mark Kirk: How can I get Sarah Palin to like me?How? Move to Borneo.
Mark Kirk is Dede Scuzzyfuzzy dressed as a man.
Be conservative, nerd. Maybe you’ll get an endorsement in 2012...if you walk the walk.
Dress up like a giant bear and try to give her a hug on a dark night?
It'd resolved the issue pretty quickly either way.
Y’all are going to relish this one...
I keep meaning to do a worksheet that I could use to score a potential candidate. List all the things I consider important and then a scoring system for each item. If they come up with a score above a certain level then I could abide by them. Right now Sarah Palin would score a 110 on my worksheet! Of course, that could change if she comes up with an stand that I don't support. Heck, she could even fall as low as 102. At this point I can't see her ever going below 98!
I just hope one Freeper can relay that line to that stupid RINO.
Sorry dude, she’s married.
As one of his current constituents, I did the same. Since then, I have been put on his mailing list. No apology for cap and trade, just asking for his support.
He’s not just a liberal, but an idiot. Sorry for the redundancy.
I think this is the precise point I futilely tried to make with you months ago. I'd vote for him in a third party or independent spot. In addition to grassroots GOP voters he may well also draw a following among conservative leaning disaffected blacks who would NEVER vote "Republican".
so maybe this is why Marky dumped his wife just before entering the race .. so he could pursue Palin?
He did? The fricken pig.
(I hate guys like that)
Wallace in the general if Kirk wins would be a very tempting option. Yes I remember you suggesting that Rightguy.
I can hear the vote splitting complaints already.
If that time comes I’ll call on Marky Kirk to drop out as not to split the vote with Wallace. :D
Of course priory 1 must be trying to defeat Kirk in the primary.
The most important thing is to be a consistent Conservative from the beginning. Now he has to go back and undo his support of Cap&Trade and such. He will require some new software for that, I think. It is available, no? Alternatively he may have to rely on reincarnation.
The template needs to be
defeat “moderate” RINOs in the primary,
but failing that, defeat the ‘rat in the general.
How Many Angels Sit On The Head Of A Pin ?
Your refered to link which defends the position taken by administration sources shows that the present 23rd was not the 23rd Congressional District in a previous life but had a different numerical identification 26th 30th etc after each census district remap. When it was moved to Northern NY and decame designated as the present 23rd it was a Republican seat held by McHugh. That is the history of the present New York 23rd Congressional District period.
A factual representation would be that the area where the present congressional district designated as the 23rd lays has consisted of voters which vote Republican. But that in its past has voted for Democrats and a Independent.
Not that the New York 23rd has for the past 100 years never elected a Democrat. It did and thats the point.
Which gets expanded to House Speaker Socialist/democrat Pelosi claiming the 23rd is “a (Democratic) “victory”. She should attribute this to VP Joe Biden who campaigned in there along with turn coat Diedre Scuzzafava but doesn’t.
Its not much of a “Victory” because their candidate didn’t get a plurality and in 2010 won’t. Particularly when he votes for the two huge tax increases, chiefly Obamacare and energy tax operating under the guise of saving the earth which will go to funding socialist programs.
I’ve found a lot of people running to Wikipedia and its less-than-useless timeline chart to exclaim how the media/administration is “lying” because the “23rd district” elected a Democrat as recently as until 1993, but those that are doing so without bothering to notice that the pre-1993 23rd is NOT the same district are being either foolish or disingenuous. Districts often get renumbered over time, that’s a fact of life, but it still doesn’t change that as my research described, that within the effective current boundaries - regardless of the “number” of the district (an absolutely irrelevent point), this district has not entirely been represented by Democrats in Congress since the early 1850s, prior to the creation of the Republican party.
So, yes, when the media/rodents, etc. say this DISTRICT hasn’t elected a Democrat in over 156 years, that is 100% correct. But if you want to stick to saying the 23rd HAS elected Dems recently (prior to Tuesday), well, you can, but the 23rd in the ‘90s was Central NY, ‘80s was Albany, in the ‘70s was Westchester, and in the ‘60s and back some decades was NYC. It’s just not the same area. I prefer to stick to the facts of the district as a geographical area, not just some set number assigned it.
BTW, your claim there are no “100 year-old districts” isn’t true, either. We have at least two districts in TN (in the East) that are effectively the same districts they have been since before the middle of the 19th century. Like the current NY-23 had been, Knoxville-based TN-2 has not had a Democrat occupy it since 1853. Even my own district, TN-5, which has been TN-6 for the time when my state had 10 districts, has been effectively within the same boundaries (encompassing effectively all of Nashville) since the 19th century, too.
For Gov:
Constitution Party - Stufflebeam
Libertarian Party - Lex Green
Independent Party - Michael White
For US Sen
CP nobody
LP nobody
IP nobody
The only 3d party effort that makes sense is for the three 3d parties and their 3 candidates for governor to unite into a coalition party and a single candidate for governor. Then that single party should run a full slate of statewide candidates.
Eric Wallace would be an excellent candidate for US Senate if Kirkascabba wins the primary. But we should do our best to beat Kirk in the primary and not count on some hail-Mary in the final seconds of the game.
Since you claim to live in a congressional district which has always voted Republican ...you must be very lonely
There is a erroneous conception about FR contributers, Many are there monitoring (probably being paid for their services by the DNC) freeper traffic to defuse some volatile questionable statement made by the administration to obfuscate the issue. Then there are those who for whatever reason God Only Knows repeat that assertion.
Your assertion is;
If we just take the whole and split it into pieces...
therefore pieces of this
and therefore pieces of that
is therefore
the sum of poof (smoke)
Did you find it too difficult to respond to the assertion that the democratic cadidate failed to carry a plurality ?
I don’t know what argument you’re trying to make, FRiend. You seem a bit obtuse and confused. I never said I lived in a CD that has always voted Republican. I live in TN-5 (which I made plain to you in my post). My district has not voted Republican for the House since Ulysses Grant won reelection in 1872.
OK, I tried to reread your confusing post, I’ll try to say this again...
Point #1, The Dems/media said this district hasn’t voted Democrat for Congress since the 19th century.
Response: This is correct. This area comprised roughly three districts throughout a good portion of the 19th century. The easternmost portion (then NY-16) voted Democrat in 1870. It has been entirely GOP from 1873 until McHugh’s resignation. For the area consisting of the effective entirety of what makes up the current boundaries, you would have to go back to 1853 to find the last time Democrats represented all of what is NY-23.
Point #2, Regarding the actual winning percentage of Democrat Bill Owens.
Response: You erroneously stated he didn’t win a plurality. You confused “majority” with “plurality.” Owens did not win a majority of the vote, he only won a plurality. This is correct that he did not receive the majority of the voters’ support. If Democrats claim he does, that is a clear falsehood. The combined Conservative and “R” vote was a majority (but we don’t know if those that voted for the Republican did so because she was ideologically to the left of now-Congressman Owens, or because they just pull the “R” lever regardless - in which case we won’t know the answer short of individually polling said people).
In CA-10 (the other special election on Tuesday), the Democrat won by an extremely underwhelming 53-43% in a very-Dem leaning district (the Republican performed here almost as well as Hoffman did) that last elected a Republican in 1994 (although the lines have been altered somewhat). The Dems may have won both seats, but one by well-underperforming (CA-10) and another almost entirely because of the disarray caused by an internal GOP problem. They “lucked out”, so to speak.
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.