Alexi Giannoulias: All Audacity, All The Time (Chicago/Obama Way)

At some point in the past few weeks, Illinois Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias was sitting in his million-dollar Chicago condo wondering how he could possibly stop the death spiral of his campaign for the United States Senate.

It had all seemed so perfect just a few months ago—The dashing and urbane Alexi had burst on the political scene only four years ago spending millions of his parents money to win statewide office in his very first foray into politics.

He shot hoops with his role model and political patron, Barak Obama. He had wealth, charisma, connections and unbridled ambition and a solidly blue state in which to make all his dreams come true.

His entry into the race for his idol’s Senate seat was met with a collective wince from Democrats. From the White House on down, political operatives made overtures to nearly every possible alternative candidate short of Rod Blagojevich.

State Attorney General Lisa Madigan, Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart, Chris Kennedy, and Dem mandarin Bill Daley are just the alternatives that readily come to mind. Even with all these A-listers taking a pass, Alexi still drew four primary opponents.

The scuttlebutt was that Democrat insiders felt Alexi lacked depth and that, coupled with troubles at his family’s Broadway Bank, he would be a very weak candidate.

He spent a ton of cash to eke out a primary win. But 61% of Democrats wanted someone else to be the nominee.

Meanwhile, moderate GOP Congressman Mark Kirk cruised with nearly 60% of the Republican primary vote against six challengers. Since then, things have gotten progressively worse for Alexi.

The Democrat’s plan to paint Kirk as a callous Wall Street Republican who cares not a whit about the suffering of Americans never got off the ground because the Chicago media seemed a little more interested in the issues surrounding the impending failure of Broadway Bank.

When the political neophyte Giannoulias sought the State Treasurer’s office in 2006 his only claim of legitimacy was his highly-touted work as a Vice President and Senior Loan Officer at the stunningly successful Broadway Bank that his immigrant dad had founded.

He claimed he was a financial wunderkind who could manage the state’s finances with the same innovative style that led to Broadway’s success. The repeated six-figure donations to his campaign from his immediate family helped push this narrative in spite of some emerging questions from the press.

Now that Alexi sought to make a quantum leap in the political world, those lingering questions came back and, to put it mildly, Alexi’s answers did not all add up.

There were conflicting representations of how much authority Alexi had had at the bank. Had he been the hot-shot executive on the cutting edge of the bank’s success, or was he parked in a job with significantly less responsibility as he now claims?

Was he just doing what his dad and brother told him when he loaned $20 million to a couple of convicted mobsters and visited their Miami hotel to check on the bank’s investment?

Was he unaware of the federal investigation of political fixer Tony Rezko as he continued to loan him millions as his empire crumbled?

As Broadway sank into insolvency in the recession, did he help devise a plan to cash out $30 million of the family’s equity to “diversify holdings,” before the bottom dropped out?

Sadly, many banks that got greedy in the real estate bubble have been busted in the downturn. But it is important to note that for every bank that has failed, hundreds have survived through sound management, better diversification, and, to some extent, luck.

But the narrative that was inexorably taking hold in the media and among the political classes in Illinois was that these issues raised debilitating questions about Alexi’s qualification and character—his fundamental fitness for office.

In the meantime, what was supposed to be the signature program of the State Treasurer’s office, the Bright Start college savings program has been hammered in the market, raising questions about the way Giannoulias meted out lucrative contracts to invest the program’s funds. Hundreds of thousands of families are negatively impacted.

Democrats began making snippy comments about Alexi in public and some pundits began calling for Alexi to get off the ticket before it was too late to find a suitable replacement who might not drag the whole slate down with it. And then the poll numbers started coming in. After the primary Alexi held small leads in several independent polls.

Now, his numbers were tanking fast. Kirk hasn’t moved an inch. But negative opinions of Alexi jumped, particularly among independents. Kirk had barely lifted a finger and the numbers had flipped in six weeks.

Back to Alexi sitting in his high-rise bachelor pad, wondering how to get his mojo back.

As he flips through the cable channels he lands on a re-run of Patton and hears George C. Scott (inaccurately) quote Fredrick the Great—“L’audace, l’audace, toujours l’audace.” And it hits him.

He will turn the tables in this battle by being utterly audacious. No matter what, he will drive his message forward in the face of, well, reality.

When anyone wants to question how his shaky resume, his shady business associations and his family’s management decisions reflect on him, Alexi and his apologists go on the attack.

They respond that Mark Kirk wants to take health care away from sick children and that Kirk is a right-wing extremist. One Giannoulias claim that is legitimate, but immaterial, is that Kirk has sought to focus attention on Alexi’s bank-related problems and has said much less about policy issues. There will be plenty of time for Kirk to go toe-to-toe with Alexi on the issues. Kirk would just prefer that Alexi come into that debate with a giant albatross around his neck.

But Alexi’s handlers recently disclosed that they had hit upon a new strategy that would make Patton proud.

Mustering up every ounce of audacity available on the earth, they recently told reporters that their focus groups had shown that voters don’t really care if Alexi misrepresented his qualifications and consorted with pimps and bookies. What got a response was portraying Alexi and Broadway Bank as, yes, indeed, victims.

Alexi and the Giannoulias family, who squirreled away $30 million as the bank regulators circled and who funded the mob’s real estate investment portfolio, are innocent victims of the Kirk/Bush recession.

The Giannoulias Building and Loan was done in by George W. Potter. Alexi, like the average American, is down to his last few million, barely able to buy his next Brioni suit. And Kirk, whose father worked for the phone company and who has supplemented his public servant salary for twenty years by serving as an intelligence officer in the Naval Reserves, is supposedly living the high life with Karl Rove and Dick Cheney.

Alexi recently whined to an audience that Kirk is being mean by constantly bringing up the bank issues and that it is just Kirk’s way of avoiding the issues. He wants voters to believe that his experience, his qualifications and his character are off limits. True, his only hope appears to be a straight up debate over the candidates’ competing visions of doctrinaire liberalism versus center-right fiscal conservatism.

Polling numbers indicate that, even in this blue state, the electorate is pretty split this year. Add into that mix, Alexi’s chance to become the ethical heir of Blagojevich, it is clear why he and his allies are deeply worried.

Giannoulias seems to be so comfortable with the new “All Audacity, All the Time” strategy that he now calls Kirk’s moderate credentials “absolute farce.”

Considering that National Journal has consistently rated Kirk as one of the most centrist legislators in Washington, considering that Kirk is pro-choice and has moderate positions on gay rights and the environment, considering that nearly every conservative pundit, including Laura Ingram has publicly vilified him, considering that nearly every right-wing activist in Illinois opposed his nomination, considering that some conservatives actually want to run a third-party candidate in the race, Alexi may not be able to make this accusation stick. In fact, it may exacerbate his credibility problems even more.

And now, Alexi continues to push the audacity envelope. He told reporters that, if elected, he will aggressively seek a position on the Senate Banking Committee saying he could bring “very important perspective” to the Committee. If it weren’t for the fact that Cuba and China are members of the UN Human Rights Council, this would set the global standard for irony.

While Kirk has yet to tap deep into his considerable war chest to make his case for why he deserves to be promoted to the Senate, it appears he can bide his time while Alexi continues to struggle harder against this quicksand.

FYI — royal treatment in the Emperor’s court

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Why does the IRS commissioner need bodyguards in order to go out to lunch?
By Tucker Carlson | Published: 04/12/10

###

How many Americans have ever heard of IRS commissioner Douglas Shulman? How many could pick him out of a lineup if their lives depended on it? Not one in a million, you say? Don’t tell Shulman, who believes himself to be so famous that he requires Mick Jagger-level personal protection.

Before Shulman sat down to eat in an upscale Washington restaurant last week, at least two members of his federal security detail checked the dining room for threats. They stayed with the virtually-anonymous-yet-apparently-gravely-imperiled commissioner throughout the meal.

And if you think that’s overkill, consider the security retinue that travels with Gen. James Jones, the national security adviser, when he eats in public. One local maitre’d counted no fewer than six bodyguards the other day. The group showed up more than an hour before Jones himself, and demanded that the retired Marine general be given a specific table.

Keep in mind that this took place in downtown Washington, D.C., during daylight hours, one of the safest, most cop-saturated places on Earth.

But for obnoxious, nothing beats the flamboyant power play Valerie Jarrett staged at Dulles Airport not long ago. Jarrett’s official job title is “assistant to the president for public engagement and intergovernmental affairs,” whatever that means, though her power derives from her friendship with Barack Obama.

And that’s also how she gets to the departure gate faster than the rest of us. Jarrett cruised through the airport at high speed with at least three members of a security detail, all paid for by tax dollars.

The line between government-issued bodyguard and manservant has always been thin in Washington, and never more so than now. By all accounts, the Obama administration has dramatically increased the number and scope of the security details that protect but mostly serve its appointees.

Has Washington become a dramatically more dangerous place to work? Of course not. But they can. So they did.

>>> Now, his numbers were tanking fast. Kirk hasn’t moved an inch. But negative opinions of Alexi jumped, particularly among independents. Kirk had barely lifted a finger and the numbers had flipped in six weeks. <<

This article is dead wrong. Kirk has been running around the state for weeks, shouting about Broadway Bank from the rooftops. He's running incessant ads attacking Alexi. What's happened is Alexi's negatives have skyrocketed, yet the percentage of pro-Kirk voters hasn't changed. Just because people hate Alexi, it doesn't mean they're willing to drink Kirk's kool-aid. Kirk has the enormously fortunate luck of running against the most blatantly corrupt Democrat on the ballot and he's still only ahead within the margin of error (-/+ 5%). Meanwhile our "unelectable" conservative nominee for Governor is ahead of incumbent Governor Pat Quinn by double digits! Kirk sucks as a candidate and is yet more proof running as Dem-lite doens't make one more "electable".

>>> Alexi recently whined to an audience that Kirk is being mean by constantly bringing up the bank issues and that it is just Kirk’s way of avoiding the issues. He wants voters to believe that his experience, his qualifications and his character are off limits. True, his only hope appears to be a straight up debate over the candidates’ competing visions of doctrinaire liberalism versus center-right fiscal conservatism. <<

A stopped clock is right twice a day, and I hate to admit it but Alexi is right that Kirk is avoiding the issues like the plague. Kirk doesn't want to discuss his experience or character. He doesn't want to get into details about his record during the last 10 years in Congress because he's been on the wrong side of history with every major debate in this country. As usual, Kirk has nothing to offer voters because he agrees with everything Alexi is running on. Kirk has been about as "fiscally conservative" as Ahnuld in office and doesn't want voters to find out his message is a farce. The only "issue" Kirk is talking about at the moment is patting himself on the back for spending zillions to "protect lake Michigan", and promising to enshire Obama's executive order for taxpayer funding to destroy human embroys as permanant law. Nevermind that Alexi will do the exact same thing in Washington. Kirk thinks the messsage "Just as liberal as Alexi, but no Broadway Bank baggage!" is a winner. We'll see.

>>> he now calls Kirk’s moderate credentials “absolute farce.” <<

Alexi is right, for the wrong reasons. Kirk is no moderate, he's an abortion-loving, gun-grabbing, doctrine socialist. He is well to the left of many card-carrying DEMOCRAT officials in Illinois, such as my Lipinski-style state senator. The argument that some moonbats hate Kirk, therefore he must be a good guy, is the same argument used by freepers to re-elect socialist Joe Lieberman. Both are good little left-wing socialists, who happen to upset the insane moonbats sinply because they shook hands with George W. Bush once.

>> Why, the one for Majority Leader of course. Now, who do you think Kirk will cast that vote for? If Reid goes down in flames as it seems he will, do you think Kirk will cast his vote for Durbin or for a Republican? But vote for him I will for that one single reason. <<

Unless the Senate is split 50-50, Kirk's vote for majority leader accomplishes absolutely nothing. During the 0.5% of cases where the Senate is equally split between parties, there's no gurantee DIABLOs like Kirk will support "our side" just because they happen to have an "R" next to their name. Indeed, in the last decade alone, Arlen Specter and Jim Jeffords have proven the arguement that we "have to" elect a socialist "Republican" because they will vote for a GOP majority leader is false. DIABLOs could care less about helping the GOP, they will vote for whatever gives them the most power in Washington. To get a DIABLO like Kirk to caucus with the Dems, all they have to do is bribe him and offer him a better committee chairmanship than the GOP is willing to offer. Furthermore, the other 99.5% of the time when they're not voting for majority leader, Kirk will be voting with the Dems on most issues regardless of who he's caucusing with. Kirk will be FAR more influencial in swaying RINOs and moderate Dems to the dark side than Obama's crooked buddy will be. That's reason enough to oppose sending another Linc Chafee to the U.S. Senate for six years.

>> Kirk often infuriates me. However, I will give him credit for changing his cap and trade vote after constituents (including yours truly) wrote some strong e-mails to his office. I would rather have a RINO who listens than a socialist who rams through the Marxist agenda. <<

Kirk only changed his cap n' treason position because he was running in a contested GOP primary for the first time in a decade and he was afraid a real Republican could beat him. Kirk's faux "Republican" actions over the past few months were solely to win that primary. He has NO intention of actually following thur on any of those promises (note that the Kirk supporters rolled their eyes during the primary when I said Kirk was just posturing when he claimed to adamantly against Obamacare and dedicated to repealing it. Yet now that the primary's over Kirk has indeed dropped his "pledge" to repeal it and says he regrets making such a pledge! Amazing!) Aside from Kirk's primary campaign from Sept. 2009 - Feb. 2010, can you think of a SINGLE time during his entire congressional career that Kirk listened to Republican constituents and backed away from his initial support of Democrat legislation? I doubt it. The ONLY time Kirk ever votes "with us" (Bush tax cuts, war on terror, anti-Obamacare), etc., is when the polls show it would personally benefit him to vote that way. Otherwise the only people Kirk listens to are lefitsts, like when Mark Kirk betrayed us on Iraq and voted AGAINST the surge.

>> Some of the Freepers who would rather have a socialist in office <<

Mark Kirk IS a socialist, not a "moderate" Republican. Even John McCain and Lindsey Graham vote conservative twice as often as Kirk. He is WELL to the left of a squishy center-right Republican like Mike DeWine or Norm Coleman, and even well to the left of a middle-of-the-road centrist like Scott Brown. If Kirk really wants to win over independents, find common ground on an issue, and appeal to the middle, why is Kirk such a gung-ho doctrine leftist on issues like abortion? Over 70% of voters oppose partial birth abortion, but Kirk is for it and gloats about voting with NARAL 100% of the time. He's certainly not taking those stances to be more "electable" or get people with differing views on the issue to support him. Since Kirk normally loves to pander to whatever the popular position is, one has to wonder why he'd hurt his own election chances by being so extreme on abortion and absolutely refuses to budge on the issue and moderate his views. The only logical explanation is Kirk genuinely believes in the cause of abortion-on-demand and will fight for it. And we're supposed to believe this commie will stand up against Marxist judges and be a dependable vote for keeping Conservatives in power? Please. Mark Kirk has made it clear he despises conservatives and does everything possible to alienate "his" party. He believes doing the bidding of NARAL, the ACLU, and the Sierra Club will make "moderates" and 'independents" love him, so be it. Let's test that theory. Kirk is a backstabbing scumbag and deserves to go down in flames.

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.