Been reading the posts with some interest. Mark Kirk is an honorable guy and probably the only Illinois GOPer that can have a chance against the Daley Machine. Our GOP here in Illinois got gutted back when they threw sentate candidate Ryan (no relationship to the late gov) under the bus for some kinky sexcapades with his wife, the detail of which got revealed by the BHO/Machine dems back when his holiness ran for the senate. Ditka decided not to run, and gave valid reasons, so our esteemed GOP leadership went out and recruited Keyes who came off as a total wack job. No, I don’t hold out much hope here. Burris will stay unless reid/durbin throw him uder the bus through senate expulsion rules. Quinn’s just an air bag.

ChicagoBlues on February 20, 2009 at 3:49 PM

Keyes didn’t come off as crazy.. He actually IS crazy. There’s a big difference between the two.

So you think I should run in the special election?

1. I have never met Blagojevich or Burris;
2. I have never been implicated in a corruption scandal.

Think I have a chance?

playblu on February 20, 2009 at 12:52 PM

Have you ever used or are you currently using TurboTax to file your tax returns?

While I doubt Burris will resign, watch one thing –in a few hours, it will be 6:00PM and this is Friday.
Is there an over/under on this?

We should really rebuild the party around fiscal conservatism, not social issues. To have an actual majority party, you need people winning both in socially conservative states (OK and Utah) and socially moderate/ liberal states (IL).

Illinidiva on February 20, 2009 at 1:54 PM

Ditto. Moral legislation is not provided for at the Federal level (i.e., not in the constitution). Libertarians and Social Conservatives can easily work together if they agree that the federal level is not the place for these matters. Libertarians and Social Conservatives can duke it out at the state level.

Given how badly the elected representatives in the Land of Lincoln have behaved, the voters will demand the special election now more than ever.
EM

Sorry to say it, Ed, but you badly overestimate the Illinois electorate. Half are doctrinaire liberals or single-race voters (black), so the Dems start every election at least at 50/50.

Then you have the white union workers in Cook County, who are probably no different in ideology than any other group of union workers, except that their jobs are controlled by Democrat mobsters.

Then you have the farmers, who are conservatives unless they have been bought off by the Dems who pay farmers to let weeds grow in the richest farmland in the world.

Then you have the pro-abortion women suburbanites, who used to be conservatives, but now tend toward a single feminist position.

No, they aren’t going to give a crap about a special election – they just want someone to appoint another Democrat.

Pat Arnold: I would say, uh… Ditka, 65-35.

Carl Wollarski: Ditka, 72-28.

Todd O’Connor: Is, uh, this special election being held during football season?

Bob Swerski: Nah… it’s held during spring training, so uh, da Cubs are out of town.

Todd O’Connor: In that case, it’s gonna be tight… let’s say, uh, Ditka… 62-38.

Bob Swerski: You are all wrong, my friends. It will be Ditka 84, King of Kings 16.

becki51758 on February 20, 2009 at 1:42 PM

What did he say?

Perhaps this is a better can’t have it both ways scenario. Is it better to have a “purer” party (depending on his specific positions this guy is going to be a reviled RINO or CINO to some), the kind that posters have been talking about as being needed to rebuild the party, or is it better to pick up the seat.

okonkolo on February 20, 2009 at 1:49 PM

We should really rebuild the party around fiscal conservatism, not social issues. To have an actual majority party, you need people winning both in socially conservative states (OK and Utah) and socially moderate/ liberal states (IL).

The belief here is the Rep. Mark Kirk with be the Republican to run. While not a straight line conservative, he is someone that can win in Illinois as it is now.

WashJeff on February 20, 2009 at 12:57 PM

Socially very liberal, but very good on fiscal matters. He took a leading role in the Porkulus debates and helped convince moderate Republicans in the House to vote “no.” Therefore, he’s infinitely better than Arlen and the Maine Sisters.

Perhaps this is a better can’t have it both ways scenario. Is it better to have a “purer” party (depending on his specific positions this guy is going to be a reviled RINO or CINO to some), the kind that posters have been talking about as being needed to rebuild the party, or is it better to pick up the seat.

Citibank is the real story today, guys. It’s stock is crashing. The slow motion federal question of “nationalize it – yes or no” is crushing that stock (and the market in general) and is forcing that nationalization to happen.

I’ll bite. The govt. has been saying that nationalization is definitely not on the table (and said so again today, and asked that others that they were in communication with to say so publicly), but everyone else is watching the slow motion wreck and not seeing how it doesn’t get nationalized. In other words, despite what the WH is saying, everyone else won’t stop talking about nationalization because it looks that bad. and it will become a self fulfilling prophesy.

You people are hilarious. If he doesn’t resign, you call the Democrats, & Burris, & Quinn corrupt. Now that Quinn calls on him to resign, you say he’s “throwing him under the bus.”

You can’t have it both ways.

Constant Parrhesia on February 20, 2009 at 1:18 PM

Whether or not Quinn is corrupt is a separate question. Burris being corrupt seems clear.

Burris is being thrown under the bus because he’s an embarrassment, which goes back to being corrupt.

No conflict betwen the two statements at all.

being pro-gun control is not social liberalism. but ok lol. in other words, he’s a moderate. gotcha

Libertarian Joseph on February 20, 2009 at 1:29 PM

That is why I use the left’s Orwellian term ‘progressive’ to describe so-called liberals. I want the term liberal back. I know myself and almost all poserts here love liberty more than progressives. They do not deserve the label ‘liberal’.

So you think I should run in the special election?

1. I have never met Blagojevich or Burris;
2. I have never been implicated in a corruption scandal.

Think I have a chance?

playblu on February 20, 2009 at 12:52 PM

I’ve got you one better. In addition to the first two qualifications, I vote in Illinois (Chicago) but don’t live there. This should be a shield against corruption.

You can’t have it both ways.

Constant Parrhesia on February 20, 2009 at 1:18 PM

Let me give you an example…
A senator lies about his lobbying contacts…
If he tells the truth, he is censored and maybe removed…if he doesn’t tell the truth, he is eventually found out and is prosecuted for misconduct and lying under oath and maybe jail for lying under oath…
You would say, Hey, if he tells the truth is is punished, and if he lies he is punished…”you can’t have it both ways”.
See where your process is screwy?

Quinn wants to defeat Lisa (D- My Daddy is the Speaker) Madigan in the Dem. primary in 2010. This is a good way for him to separate himself from the Democrat machine and make himself out as a reformer.

Illinidiva on February 20, 2009 at 1:12 PM

Good point, Illinidiva, but being a true “reformer” is a guaranteed loser position in Chicago. Obama played the game, in fact, became a winner because he played it so well and doggedly faithfully. Obama was (and still is) a fine cog in the Daley machine….the presidency is his reward. Quinn will play, you watch, regardless…and probably because of, his political ambitions. This is just a more nuanced version of Pay-to-Play, with power and political progress the currency instead of crass cash.