Kirk Opts Out of Senate Race (RINO drops out in IL)

WaPo ^ | July 10, 2009 | Chris Cillizza

[rightwingintelligentsia]

Ping

[Maine Mariner]

What if Mike Ditka ran?

[Jabba the Nutt]

Gawd, but he's so valuable. The National Republicans want him in the Senate.

Fire the RNC and all national Republican officials.

[ElPatriota]

SMART CHOICE!!!... Go get a real job now...

:)

[STD]

Does anyone have a picture of Andy McKenna?

[Paige]

Where are the Conservatives in the District? They should be looking for a Candidate. DO NOT TRUST THE IL Republicans or the National Republicans.

[fieldmarshaldj]

*ping*

[BillyBoy]

The Washington Post “Kirk drops out” story has been denied by the Kirk camp and IL GOP insiders (like Gov. Edgar and Rep. Biggert, who are still endorsing Kirk). Apparently the confusion stems from the fact that fellow combiner IL GOP Chairman McKenna still wants to run, and the combine will only allow one of them to run. Either Kirk or McKenna would have to drop out and endorse the other one. They're “negotiating” it this weekend.

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

[usconservative]

Kirk and McKenna are both MODERATE RINO's.

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.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Here’s hoping both those slimy RINO Combiners form a circular firing squad.

[darkangel82]

Zot the RINOs.

[BillyBoy]

>> Does anyone have a picture of Andy McKenna? <<

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.

[heiss]

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.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Hey, it’s Nikola Tesla’s birthday, too.

[BillyBoy]

Kirk is not a "50% liberal", he's to the left of a lot of "moderate Democrats" in Illinois. It's very telling that the only "conservative" things his apologists can point to Kirk supporting was a no vote on porkulus (11 Dems also voted no) and a yes vote on tax cuts eight years ago (28 Dems also voted yes).

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"

[fieldmarshaldj]

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).

[Irish Eyes]

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.

Thanks so much for your help.

[darkangel82]

That’s why I posted it. :)

[BillyBoy]

I was a kid during the Percy era, but I looked up his voting record a couple years back and was shocked to discover he was voting to the LEFT of our RAT Senator from that time (Alan Dixon). Several Illinois freepers have told me that the RATs used to love having Percy in power because they could use his endorsement to portray any socialist scheme of theirs as having "bi-partisan support" in the Senate.

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.

[jveritas]

Is he a Republican?