I've been posting on Merge all morning about the possibility of moving Guantánamo Bay terror detainees to to the Thomson Correctional Center in Thomson, Illinois but this next bit deserves an entire blogpost all its own:
Illinois GOP lawmakers will try to force Congress to vote on a provision requiring the White House to study the potential impact that transferring alleged terror detainees to a prison in their state would have on Chicago's O'Hare airport and the Willis (Sears) Tower before such a transfer would happen.
A handful of the state's congressional delegation took to the mics on Monday morning in Chicago, where Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) announced his intention to amend the upcoming supplemental appropriations bill.
Here, I'll make Kirk's life easier and predict the result of the study right now: The. Prisoners. Who. Will. Be. Locked. In. A. Maximum. Security. Prison. Will. Not. Endanger. Any. Tall. Buildings. Or. Airports. Anywhere.
To reiterate the points I made earlier. Nobody has escaped from a maximum security prison. Ever. These detainees won't be any different. And because they'll be locked up in a maximum security jail they won't have anything to damage a major building or airport with.
But you know what? Kirk probably knows that too. What he's betting is that the rest of us don't know that and are so gullible that we wouldn't make the connection between prison and imprisonment.
Mark Kirk is trying to walk a thin line here. He doesn't want to be Scozzafavaed but he doesn't want to come off as too conservative either. Take this excellent piece by Mike O'Brien (a former classmate of mine) in The Hill. O'Brien reports that Kirk is criticizing the "Pelosi healthcare bill" on its policy, not its ideology. That's enough to make a moderate Democrat in Illinois pause. A Republican who's actually criticizing the bill because of what it does and not because of who proposed it? Well maybe I'll take a listen. Kirk also keeps his conservative cred by criticizing the bill at all. Problem is, Kirk's criticism is so ridiculous, what he's really doing is just pandering to the base:
Kirk outlined core elements of Republicans' health reform proposals in the address, arguing that the healthcare bill passed a week ago by the House would do little to reform the system, and result in higher taxes.
What about reducing prices? What about insuring millions of Americans? What about stopping insurers from rejecting consumers based on preconditions? That's all nothing?
Well while I'm sure many may admire his stance in favor of the public option for health care reform, what hurts this celebration is that he took a US Senate appointment from Rod Blagojevich.
Call me a cynic but I don't think there'll be much of a consequence if staunch liberals oppose a healthcare reform bill with the Stupak Amendment. That's what Congresswoman JanSchakowsky is doing and also what my new Congressman Mike Quigley is doing. It's a noble effort but really, the liberals in the House and the Senate are the ones who are in the worst position for attention getting. Are they really going to oppose a very progressive healthcare reform bill because it doesn't allow for abortion funding? Is it that much of a surprise that such a compromise exists?
I mean yes, it'd be really nice if the final bill didn't limit abortion funding but who's going to bend over backwards to accommodate Schakowsky? When push comes to shove is she really going to vote against a bill like this with its many other liberal attributes? I doubt it.
It's progressives' big chance to make a difference (although not as big of one as they and I would like). Withholding their vote on a very although not completely progressive bill would also likely endanger them with their liberal constituents.
And I suspect they know this as well. They just need to make a bit of a show so that their liberal voters know they aren't totally okay with such the bill as it is.
Politico lists Illinois as one of a ten states that could lose a senate seat to the opposition party in 2010:
While Democrats failed in their efforts to woo state Attorney General Lisa Madigan into the race, Republicans scored a major recruiting coup when they signed up Rep. Mark Kirk, a mammoth fundraiser known for his success in holding a tough suburban Chicago House seat. Both sides agree that Kirk will make the race for a Democratic seat competitive. Democrats, meanwhile, have struggled to find a candidate they are comfortable with -- state Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias has emerged as the front-runner in the Democratic primary field, though his background in banking may provide fodder for opponents.
have to say that sounds...plainly... false to me. There are some states where President Obama's coattails aren't long enough to cover the Democrats in the senate and the house and even though Illinois politics is famous for corruption (often among Democrats) there's no way Mark Kirk who --is a moderate candidate only because every once in a while he'll say something on, say diplomacy, or Sarah Palin, that doesn't quite match up with the party line or the Democrats-- will gather enough support to take Burris's senate seat.
It's true that Alexi Giannoulias does have some questionable business ties but they're hardly enough to take him down IF he gets the nomination and I'm not convinced he will. It's still early and there's no reason to say Hoffman is out just yet.
Nor should they. I'm not convinced Mark Kirk's letter to the Palin people constituted a request for an endorsement, but his campaign certainly made a pitch to Palin about his suitability. And for what? A "Palin bump" over his barely-existent primary challenges? Stupid move.
The Illinois techie-political blogosphere is abuzz about former Chicago Inspector General and current US Senate candidate David Hoffman's new website redesign, which includes the ability for users to post directly to the candidate's website through Twitter hash tags -- it also looks pretty damn good. Head over and check it out.
That sort of interactivity, which the Obama campaign allowed with its user pages ("demmynerd.barackobama.com") is going to be both a major innovation and a major challenge for campaigns from here on out. How do you allow for the public to interact and take some ownership of the site without risking losing control, getting off message, or getting hijacked? Looks like the Hoffman campaign is interested in testing those waters. Good for them.
This isn't anything to get overly excited about but it appears that Illinois Senator Roland Burris isn't totally on board with the opt-out provision. He's been saying for a little while now that he wouldn't settle for anything less than a serious public option sans concessions and I guess he's...still serious about it. I'm still skeptical of how far he's going to go and Lynn Sweet reports that the White House is dispatching its health czar to talk with Burris which, I bet, will cool him down.
Maybe a primary challenger (well, technically he has one) would do Mark Kirk well. Kirk's virtually unimpeded path to the Republican nomination for the Senate election next November seems to have allowed his campaign to slouch, and focus on political considerations over policy ramifications. There was his bizarre admission that he voted for the Cap'n Trade bill because it was politically popular for his constituency at the time (ie, the residents of the north suburban 10th Congressional District), but that he wouldn't vote for it if he represented Illinois generally; and then there were his inappropriately-timed Tweets.
Now, Kirk has come out against health care reform--not a particular bill, but "health care reform"--seemingly because it will mean unpopularity at the polls: "Several dozen House Democrats risk losing their jobs if they vote for reform."
So? Isn't the point that we need health care reform? Isn't that a reason to laud these Democrats--that they'd risk their jobs doing something they believed in, even if its wrong? Perhaps its "minority syndrome"--knowing that your actions are essentially ineffectual makes you lose sight of the real-world ramifications of your actions, putting everything into a political advantage context.
The Giannoulias campaign hit back immediately, Giannoulias releasing this statement:
It's sad that Congressman Kirk would rather win an election than lower the cost of health care for Illinois families, but with these words and ten years of voting with big drug and insurance companies to block reform, Congressman Kirk has made it clear he puts politics ahead of our families.
Duh. By changing only a couple words--"reform" to "that bill"--Kirk could have saved himself from this obvious hit. Instead, he casts himself as just another Republican obstructionist--and whatever his advisors or the NRSC or Charlie Cook is telling him, Illinois is still a Democratic state in the sense that there is little visceral grassroots allegiance to the worn Republican talking points of free markets. Illinoisans like most Americans support health care reform, and being against it solely (or apparently) because it's unpopular just feeds the image of Kirk as an opportunist that the Democrats have been sketching for the last few months.
We have different numbers. It's arguable about who is ahead and by how much because people's methods are different and there are different screens.
But that profile is VERY unbalanced. It is longer than Alexi's, it uses way more descriptive and terms about Hoffman and puts him in a much better light than the plain vanilla description they give Alexi.
This race is not wide open. That analysis doesn't point out how much it a significant buy is in IL (about a million a week to completely saturate). It neglects labor's influence, the elected officials who have organizations and the screaming fact that anyone who puts out a poll showing they have 7% of the vote with 3 months to go in the coldest time of the year in IL has to find a way to get 25-30% more of the vote while being outspent 4-1.
This is an uphill battle at best.
This polling memo, via the Huffington Post, indicates that while Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias has a lead on his primary opponents, once voters are engaged on the issues, the campaign is wide open--and, apparently, former Chicago Inspector General opens up a not insignificant lead. This would indicate (if politics was science) that if Hoffman has enough money to make his case to the Democrats of Illinois, he could very well win this thing despite Giannoulias's considerably advantages of cash and name recognition. Elections of course are about votes, and Giannoulias has the backing of most of the state's county-level party organization. These organizations vary in significance, but in the well-organized Democratic areas, these county parties can deliver votes in good numbers. Poll was commissioned by the Hoffman campaign, so after ingesting a bit of salt, check out the poll:
Abner Mikva's name is a sort of vestment that means "ethical" and "good government". So given former City of Chicago Inspector General David Hoffman's campaign themes in the US Senate Primary--cleaning up Illinois--this endorsement from Judge Mikva lends credibility to that theme and, ironically, probably sets the stage for vicious back and forth between Hoffman, state Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias, and former Blagojevich aide and Urban League leader Cheryle Jackson (who has quietly been rounding up national support, apparently quite effectively). With "cleaning up Illinois" as a campaign theme, as primary day draws near the Hoffman campaign will try to heighten the contrast between his "outsider" status and the past connections of Giannoulias and Jackson to Illinois pols and organizations.
UPDATE: Hoffman also announced his transparency initiative if he were to become Senator. I've bolded two items:
Posting all daily Senate schedules online, including identifying every person and group he meets with
Posting the official Senate office budget online, including salaries of all employees and office expenditures
Posting all Senate appropriation earmarks online sought by the office, including a full explanation and cost of each project
Posting all foreign travel online, including the purpose of the trip, meetings that took place and who was in them and the total cost of the travel
Posting all campaign donors who bundle contributions and the amounts they raised online
These are two things the President failed to deliver on, from his own promises of transparency.
The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) IL State Council, which represents hundreds of thousands of workers and retirees in Illinois, gave their endorsement in the Senate primary to state Treasurer and current front runner Alexi Giannoulias, over competitors Cheryle Jackson of the Urban League and former City Inspector General David Hoffman.
The National GOP is champing at the bit to make the 2010 U.S. Senate election in Illinois all about former Governor Rod Blagojevich. This morning, the Alexi Giannoulias campaign is serving them up a free punch, trotting out an endorsement from the union leadership that was Blago's biggest supporter and whose president was completely enmeshed in the controversy over Rod's attempt to sell this Senate seat. (He even appears on the infamous Blagojevich wiretap!)
and, to give fair context,
You can bet Giannoulias will sit silently on the dais and smile broadly as he receives the endorsement of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) leadership, just as he did when the Blagojevich controversy first surfaced. He doesn't rock the boat, and he's no doubt excited about stepping up to the same trough that netted Blagojevich more than a million dollars in campaign cash...It's not the janitors, health care workers, security personnel and other hard-working SEIU members who are the problem. It's not even the idea that the SEIU endorses candidates and puts its political power to use. We support the rank-and-file and their agenda for social justice. We take issue with the SEIU leadership-- the same leadership who once stood next to and endorsed Blagojevich as his strongest champions...
When asked for a comment about this reaction to their endorsement, a Giannoulias campaign spokesmen said in a statement,
"The working men and women of SEIU have fought for progressive policies, independent leaders and middle class families and Alexi Giannoulias is proud to stand with them and their fight to change Washington. It is not lost on us or progressives to see Hoffman, a guy who worked for ultra conservative judges Rehnquist and Jacobs, echo a Republican smear campaign against working families."
Hoffman's campaign's statement is unfair on one point at least--to say that Local 1 and State Council President Tom Balanoff was "enmeshed" in the Senate-seat-for-sale scandal isn't accurate as a matter of opinion or fact. Balanoff took a call from the governor--being on the wiretaps is not evidence of anything other than a union leader taking a call from the governor of his state.
SEIU Illinois did give Blagojevich enormous sums of money and volunteers in both of his gubernatorial bids, and were an integral part of his overall governing coalition in Springfield. The Blagojevich poison has infected both good progressives and hacks; the progressive groups and individuals who had turned on Blagojevich before his 2006 reelection are fairly few and far between. I don't doubt that SEIU's leaders want to put the Blagojevich era behind them, despite the benefits they gained under his governorship.
There's nothing in Hoffman's campaign's post that "smears" SEIU's rank-and-file, or the causes for which they fight; the unfocused criticism is of the union's leadership as state insiders (which, of course, they are). The campaign's apparent disdain for union leadership as opposed to rank and file is not something alien to progressives or the labor movement--but in a political fight at this level, jabbing at the leadership with this type of characterization just opens Hoffman up to accusations of alienation from progressive institutions. SEIU is an enormous engine for progressive causes in Illinois--not least of which as underwriters of Progress Illinois.
When asked if they had a clarification, a Hoffman campaign spokesman provided the following statement,
Nobody's attacking the hard workers and the many good works of the SEIU. We are simply raising the question of how Alexi Giannoulias can claim he stands for change while standing with the same insiders who brought us Rod Blagojevich -- and were even caught on Rod's wiretaps about selling this very Senate seat.
It's odd that the Giannoulias campaign would highlight Hoffman's long resume, where he has worked in the highest levels of all three branches of national government. We welcome a comparison of achievements and experience levels between these two candidates.
We also welcome a closer comparison of business associates between the two. That's comparing the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court with some of the shady characters who have received loans from the Broadway Bank.
This is all the Giannoulias campaign has to offer against David's candidacy. It's not much. We look forward to February 2.
There you go.
The State Council's Executive Board (listed here) votes on endorsements. The executive board members are in turn appointed by the boards of their respective locals. The Giannoulias campaign's reference to Rehnquist and Jacobs can be clarified by this post.
Republican National Chairman Michael Steele has withdrawn his sole endorsement for Mark Kirk for the U. S. Senate, recognizing that the candidacy of Patrick Hughes has drawn major support from Illinois Republicans: thus Steele's RNC is neutral...a distinct victory for Hughes.
Former City of Chicago Inspector General David Hoffman is running for the US Senate as a Democrat; it should then come as no surprise then that on his campaign website's bio page, his campaign left out some details from his resume that were present on his IG office bio: his clerkship for Chief Justice William Rehnquist, a conservative icon, and the lesser-known conservative 2nd Federal District Judge Dennis Jacobs.
Earlier in his career, Hoffman served as a law clerk for the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, and for a United States Court of Appeals Judge. He also served as Press Secretary and legislative assistant for foreign policy to U.S. Senator David Boren (D-OK), Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
His IG bio page, removed since his resignation (scroll to bottom for a screen grab), read as follows:
Prior to joining the U.S. Attorney's office, Hoffman served as a law clerk for Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist on the United States Supreme Court during October Term 1997. The prior year he served as a law clerk for Judge Dennis G. Jacobs, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New York City.
If you're wondering what opinions were handed down in the October Term 1997, the most well-known cases were probably Vacco v. Quill, a right-to-die case, and Printz v. United States, a case that weakened the enforcement of the Brady Bill. Another case, Bragdon v. Abbott, found that sufferers of asymptomatic HIV qualified under Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA); Rehnquist dissented in this latter.
When I asked Hoffman about the extent of his involvement in these cases--particularly Printz, he was confused for a moment. "I wasn't involved with that case...I actually clerked in 96-97." The error was in his original IG Bio. The October Term 1996 had fewer controversial cases; the most noted for the lay public is probably United States v. Virginia, which struck down VMI's males-only admission policy. Rehnquist concurred with the majority. Indeed, Hoffman did clerk in the 96 term; the experience led him to describe Rehnquist as "the smartest guy I know."
If you could take a bit from each candidate I think you could build the perfect candidate, so let's try.
First Adam Andzejewski.
Well I have to admit, he is the candidate I have seen the most of on the stump so far so that will influence my opinion of him vs. the others.
From Adam I would take his ability to manage a Q & A and his ability to work someone one on one; I don't know if you can teach that, but for a guy who has never run for office he is very good at it. Also his outsider status -- people are sick of Illinois government. Finally, I like his idea for putting huge amounts of government spending and other data on-line in real time.
Bill Brady
His business background, the fact he is from central Illinois are big pluses. Also he is acceptable to the strong conservative wing of the party.
Dan Proft
His tag line: Illinois Isn't Broken, It's fixed. That summarizes the issue we are trying to deal with in a nutshell. He can be a bit in your face sometimes, we need that this time. Also to some extent he is an outsider, something to be said for that as well.
After going five pages deep in a google search on Republican Candidate for Governor Illinois, those were all of the home pages I could find. Changing the search to Republican Candidate for Governor Illinois 2010, I found one more in hit in the first five pages for a guy who isn't running anymore. At this point I have given up using google searches and went to a wiki to find the rest.
Kirk Dillard
His ability to raise money, and I think Obama kind of owes him one.
Matt Murphy
I think he has a line about how he hasn't even met George Ryan. That sort of insider yet outsider thing he has. Also he is well liked by the conservative wing of the party and isn't afraid to push some things.
Bob Schillerstrom
Experience running a government that basically works (DuPage county). Also I suspect he will be able to raise some decent coin.
So what does the perfect candidate come down to? An outsider who can communicate that can raise money and is also enough of an insider to understand the process and work it.
If you find that single candidate let me know, meanwhile like a lot of other Illinois Republicans I will keep looking to see which one meshes with my definition of perfect the best.
Mick Dumke reported that Sheriff Tom Dart, the sheriff who made national headlines by refusing to evict people from their houses during the beginning of the financial crisis, won't run for senate. I had been hoping Dart would run and from Dumke's post it sounds like Dart was seriously considering. Hell, he even still may be, he hasn't officially bowed out yet, this all comes from an anonymous source of Dumke's.
Still, Dumke is probably reporting the truth and it's too bad, Dart is a far better candidate than Giannoulias. That's not to say that Alexi is a bad candidate because he's not, but as Dumke notes, Giannoulias has some negative baggage:
Giannoulias, currently the state treasurer, is telegenic, progressive, and organized in addition to having plenty of money. So the question is whether his known soft spots--such as the loans made to organized crime figures by the bank his family owns--are what's wigging them out, or whether there's another big problem out there that they fear Republican Mark Kirk is waiting to exploit.
I won't be surprised if there's a bigger scandal waiting to be uncovered and loans connected to organized crime is no small black mark, especially if you're the State Treasurer. It doesn't look good. Meanwhile Dumke highlights Dart's appeal:
Dart is clearly viewed as a rising star. He's made reforms that appeal to progressives but has strong ties to old-school Chicago political organizations as well as downstate legislators. And he's savvy about choosing hot-button issues to take a stand on before the TV cameras.
Even Dart's biggest legally questionable moment (not evicting people from their houses) has its noble appeal. Dart has that thing that Giannoulias doesn't really. Giannoulias is coming out as the de facto candidate, Dart not as much.
City Inspector-General David Hoffman, hired away from the US Attorney's office in the wake of the Hired Truck scandal, has tendered his resignation and will be entering the Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate race.
During the Homero Tristan affair, IG Hoffman earned the scorn of Juan Rangel, CEO of a public education privatizing outfit called UNO, and Mayor Daley for being a political aspirant more concerned with making headlines to advance his career than being a fair dealer. Now the Mayor is saying he's not not sad (ie, glad) to see Hoffman go:
"No, I'm not," Daley said. "You want a headline that 'Daley's happy, smiling,' and all that. The sanctity of taxpayers' money -- people work hard, they want their money protected."
Hoffman's June report on the handling of the parking meter fiasco and his recommendations for how such asset sales/leases should be handled in the future helped keep the issue alive in the press and in voters mind and kept Mayor Daley on the ropes, just as the "transition" was beginning to infuriate residents. Hoffman's decision may come from the fact that with his current record of fighting the Mayor, and with the issues that are currently on the table, he'll never have a better chance. I have to wonder who was whispering in his ear, as well, goading him to get into a primary where he stands a considerably less than good chance of winning. He's going to have to raise a lot of money from lawyers, because the party apparatus, I imagine, will put the word out on him.
We could have used him at the city; hopefully his replacement is as independent and committed as he is (though hopefully a bit less ambitious).
Rasmussen has awoken us this morning with a load of steaming polls. You know what this means--well, not much, really.
First, Senate:
3* In thinking about the 2010 Election for the United States Senate, suppose you had a choice between Republican Mark Kirk and Democrat Alexi Giannoulias. If the election were held today would you vote for Republican Mark Kirk or Democrat Alexi Giannoulias?
41% Kirk
38% Giannoulias
4% Some other candidate
17% Not sure
So Kirk and Giannoulias are tied. Cheryle Jackson, by the way, does only 8% worse against Kirk than Ginnoulias. Given the lack of name recognition, that might mean there is a 30% natural anti-GOP vote. Without seeing the crosstabs, there's not much we can infer from this at all, particularly a year away from the election. So the news here is that 14 months away from the election, the two leading candidates are even. In other words, the news is...nothing.
Here was a shocker, to me:
15* When it comes to voting in the 2010 Elections has the state budget crisis and the Blagojevich scandal made you more likely to vote for a Democrat, less likely to vote for a Democrat or will it have no impact on your vote?
7% More likely
29% Less likely
60% No impact
3% Not sure
While 29% say they are now less likely to vote for a Democrat because of Blagojevich, 60% don't really care. Thank you, scandal fatigue. I guess this means the Democrats aren't going to be forced to own Blagojevich--or that the GOP is going to have to work extra hard to hang Blago around their neck. Given that at least 30% of the electorate probably wasn't going to vote for a Democrat anyway, these numbers should be heartening to statewide Democrats--but again, without crosstabs, there's nothing too interesting here. The interesting information would be whether the Democratic Party lost support among Democrats (and suburbanites) because of the Blago scandals and budget crisis.
Greg Hinz of Crain's Chicago Business is reporting that Urban League president Cheryle Jackson will declare her candidacy for the Democratic nomination for President Obama's old US Senate seat.
The surprising part of the announcement is that she's recruited to highly-placed (and highly priced) Democratic consultants to her campaign: David Wilhelm, he made his name in the Clinton campaigns, and Belinda Lake, from the preeminent Democratic polling firm Lake Snell Perry.
Andy Martin's bruising attacks have taken a fatal toll on Mark Kirk's stillborn campaign for the U. S. Senate. Wednesday Martin was in exquisite campaign mode, marching the entire length of the Lake Forest Day Parade with a 3 year-old boy on his shoulders. Republican big shots and bloviating liberal cable TV bobbleheads face a massive challenge: with Kirk effectively out of the race, who is going to want to face Andy Martin in the primary campaign ring?
