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

WaPo ^ | July 10, 2009 | Chris Cillizza

[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.

[Maine Mariner]

I believe so. I think they wanted him to run the year Obama ran.

[fieldmarshaldj]

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.

[Clintonfatigued]

I don’t know what to think about it.

As for Andy McKenna, he’s a largely unknown quantity to me.

[BillyBoy]

McKenna's a low-key guy that nobody outside of Illinois has probably noticed. He's basically a Ray LaHood sock-puppet, IMO. You can read his bio on the IL GOP website.

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.

[Clintonfatigued]

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.

[BillyBoy]

Also, I think the combine at least correctly realizes that Kirk would be much more likely to win a Senate race (though it has nothing to do with Kirk being more “moderate”, it has to do with the fact people won if McKenna has a pulse). IMO, McKenna would probably lose to a RAT. McKenna was the combine’s choice for that Senate seat last time around (2004), and probably figures they should clear the field for him this time around after he spent millions of his own money to promote their agenda six years ago.

[Fast Ed97]

Illinois is super liberal.

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.

[jveritas]

Good points.

[jmaroneps37]

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.

[Impy]

"State Treasurer William Scott, in the GOP primary (Scott, of course, has enough of a story to tell separately). "

[fieldmarshaldj]

His OurCampaigns page is a bit more comprehensive. He was just another one of those promising pols that was en route to the U.S. Senate (which he would’ve been elected to over Alan Dixon in 1980 when Stevenson the 3rd retired) that ended up flaming out. Gov. Kerner appointed a Chicago pol, Francis Lorenz, to a vacancy in the Treasurer post (I believe Lorenz is still alive today at 95), and in an upset, Scott beat him by 1% in ‘62.

Scott tried to make a skyrocket attempt to the Governorship in 2 years but came up short against Percy. He opted not to run in ‘66 for a second term as Treasurer (which, unfortunately, was won by Stevenson by just 1%). In ‘68, rather than run for Governor (where he would’ve faced off against Dick Ogilvie), he ran for Attorney General. Ironically, he faced off against ex-Treasurer Lorenz again, but this time won by a 6% margin.

He soon became one of the most popular political figures in the state, even as Ogilvie went down in flames in ‘72, he swept to a second term with 64% and even in the anti-GOP ‘76 with 62% and when all the statewide offices switched to off-year elections in ‘78, he got a jaw-dropping 65% (for a Republican).

Just as he was headed towards a likely Senate victory in ‘80, he was indicted for tax evasion by a “crusading” Carter-appointed U.S. Attorney named Thomas P. Sullivan. It was apparently attacked as being deliberately politically motivated and he was convicted of a penny ante single count, but just in time to cripple him in his Senate run, for which he lost the primary narrowly to Lt Gov. Dave O’Neal (who lost to Dixon in November even as Reagan swept) and was forced out of the AG’s office. His health was also seriously weakened, helped in no small part because of this, and as a result, by 1986, he died at just 59.

By the account of this, it appeared he made powerful enemies by his going after “big business” in his capacity as AG. I couldn’t tell if he was particularly Conservative, however, although suing corporations doesn’t strike me as such.

http://www.ourcampaigns.com/CandidateDetail.html?CandidateID=76201

BTW, found this interesting piece on Percy and the ‘64 and ‘66 races.
http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2007/01/illinois_hall_o_4.html

This is also interesting about the complete collapse of the GOP in Chicago from the 1920s to the 1970s:
http://www.lib.niu.edu/1979/ii790211.html

[Impy]

The children are very happy. ;)

There must have been a hit in the early 20’s to the Chicago GOP as in 1923 the rats already had a large council majoirty. Or else the rats dominated the council despite pathetic performances elsewhere.

But look at those black wards on the southside, still a Republican presence into the 50’s.