Senate Democrats Promote Conservative Patrick Hughes As They Seek to Drive Wedge Between Republicans

MSNBC got hold of a memo they claim came from the DSCC that was sent to former Alaska governor Sarah Palin, in a clear attempt to capitalize on the request for support from Palin that was made by Mark Kirk's campaign. Full story here.

The text of the memo, as posted at the MSNBC site is as follows:

To: Governor Sarah Palin
Cc: Congressman Mark Kirk
Cc: Fred Malek
From: Kathleen Strand, Senior Advisor to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee

Dear Governor Palin,

Yesterday, following the purge of a moderate Republican in upstate New York and the devastating special election in NY-23, it was revealed that Congressman Mark Kirk is actively seeking your endorsement of his candidacy in the U.S. Senate race in Illinois. However, Mark Kirk has not had kind words to say about you in the past. Faced with a difficult re-election race in 2008, Kirk told reporters he “would have picked someone else” for Vice-President and that frankly he “didn’t know whether you are qualified to be President.” Now that Kirk is facing a tough primary challenge from the anti-Washington, anti-establishment candidate Patrick Hughes, he is suddenly racing to embrace you. I’m not sure how familiar you are with Mark Kirk but he is a politician who has a history of putting politics above principals [SIC], something you surely look down upon. Whether the issue is cap and trade, extending unemployment benefits, or health care reform, Kirk has either flip-flopped, been AWOL, or motivated purely by politics. On the other hand, Patrick Hughes is comfortable in his own skin as an extreme right-winger. Unlike the pro-abortion Kirk, Hughes is firmly pro-life, anti-gay marriage, and pro-gun…sounds like your type of Republican. I know you are in Milwaukee tomorrow and will be in our great state of Illinois later this month, both would be a perfect setting to give your blessing to one of these two candidates. With so much at stake in the next election, everyone wants to know -- who will you endorse in our Senate race?

Hmm... let's see. The DSCC wants to drive a wedge between Mark Kirk and any support he might be able to get from conservative Republicans thinks that Patrick Hughes could use some exposure to help them meet this goal.

Might we ask why?

The simple answer being, of course, is that the Dems are so petrified of Kirk that they will do anything, including get in the middle of a GOP primary, to try to derail him.

I wonder if Pat intends to issue a press release thanking the DSCC for its support?

Let's consider which candidate Republican primary voters should choose in February - the one who has the Dems in full panic mode, or the one that the DSCC wants to win? Your choice, folks.

NOTE to the DSCC: It's "principle" not "principal". Better hire an English major to check your correspondence.

Dems In a Panic at Thought of Senator Mark Kirk (UPDATED)

Yesterday, the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza caused a bit of a stir when he published excerpts from a memo that Mark Kirk's senate campaign had sent to Republican leader Fred Malek, asking him to assist with putting the Illinois Senate race on the radar of former Vice-Presidential candidate and former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin. Cillizza characterized the memo as seeking Palin's "endorsement," however, Kirk's team responded that the memo was part of a packet given to Palin seeking positive comments in anticipation of Palin's upcoming appearance on Oprah. I've not been able to find a copy of the actual memo itself anywhere, but here's what the Tribune reported:

"The Chicago media will focus on one key issue: Does Gov. Palin oppose Congressman Mark Kirk's bid to take the Obama Senate seat for the Republicans," states the memo to GOP power broker Fred Malek.

"Voters in Illinois have a key opportunity to take Barack Obama's senate seat. Congressman Kirk is the lead candidate to do that," the memo continues, pointing out the five-term North Shore congressman's various votes and issue positions.

Kirk campaign spokesman Eric Elk said the memo was part of a briefing given to Palin's team.

"The memo was like many others regularly prepared for high-profile visitors, pundits and media," Elk said in a statement. "The briefing provided details on the race and only requested supportive comments."

Not having seen the memo, I can't say with 100% certainty that the word "endorsement" was never used, but I've not seen anything that indicates it was, and it appears that this story grew out of the characterization made by Cillizza.

The Dems, and certain of the news media, pounced on Cillizza's post like a cat on a mouse, seeking to capitalize on what they characterized as a glaring disparity between Kirk's moderate persona and his 'pandering' (yes, they used that word) to the conservative Palin, and tried to tie it in to the recent NY-23 race and conservative activism across the country. Critics also pointed to Kirk's lukewarm (at best) comments on Palin when she was chosen by John McCain as his running mate in the 2008 presidential election. Huffpo, Talking Points Memo, Progress Illinois and other reliable Dem-boosters all had highly critical posts up within hours, and the major Dem candidates all sent out statements. Even the usually more objective Capital Fox Blog carried no less than seven updates on the story and you would have thought the sky was falling.

This all goes to show that Kirk and his team are under a microscope, with hordes of Dem operatives and sympathizers ready to rain down upon the congressman at the slightest sign of any chink in Kirk's armor. The Dems are scared, and with good reason. Current polls show Kirk essentially tied with the Dem front runner, Alexi Giannoulias, and this is a blue state, and the race is for Barack Obama's old senate seat. The fact that Kirk remains well within striking distance has got the Dems pulling out everything they have to derail the Kirk train before it picks up enough speed to run right over little Alexi.

Well, for the people who are paying attention now (and that universe may not be much, yet), I'd advise you to take everything you hear in the media with some skepticism, before making your own judgments. To me, the "Palin" story seems blown way out of proportion, so we'll see what develops on this we the campaign goes forward. But if the best glove Alexi can lay on Kirk is that he wanted Sarah Palin to throw some love his way, that isn't going to make Alexi the next U.S. Senator from Illinois.

UPDATED 11:30 a.m. Please Move Along, There's No Story Here, Apparently: Well, well, looky here. Turns out, now that Rich Miller at Capitol Fax Blog got a hold of the entire 'Palin' memo, it appears that my surmise above (that the word endorsement was not referenced anywhere in the 'Palin' memo) was correct. Miller characterizes Cillizza as "bumbling" this one and walks back Miller's wholehearted glomming on to the misleading story posted by Cillizza before checking it out. Well, in this day of pressure to be #1 with the next story, that happens to all of us. Needless to say, Cillizza is now on Miller's s*it list (probably not to mention Eric Elk's!). Miller still thinks Kirk was needlessly pandering to Palin and questions whether Kirk has an identity crisis of sorts, but whatever.

Local Lessons to Learn from Virginia, New Jersey and NY-23 (UPDATED)

Well, it seems like the death of the GOP, as predicted by Obama supporters and Dem operatives, may be a bit premature. In a clear repudiation of the politics of bigger government, massive spending, and the Obama Cult of Personality, voters in Virginia and New Jersey voted to try their luck with the GOP and elected two Republican governors, despite heavy campaigning and a huge investment of personal political capital by The One.

In a nice touch, supporters of Republican Chris Christie, who won in NJ, reportedly chanted "Yes We Can" as he took the stage in his victory speech.

Fox News said:

Republican Party leaders were quick to claim the victories as a sign that Americans are rebelling against Democratic policies in Washington. Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele said the victories marked a "clear rejection" of "tax and spend policies" in Washington.

And it's not just Fox. From Politico:

The off-year elections were, in two big races, an unmistakable rebuke of Democrats, reshuffling Obama’s political circumstances in ways likely to have severe near-term consequences for his policy agenda and larger governing strategy.

On the other hand, the Democrats won in the often-strange race for New York's 23rd Congressional District, in which Conservative challenger Doug Hoffman and GOP-candidate Dede Scozzafava split the vote and allowed Democrat Bill Owens to sneak into office in a largely right-leaning district, after many big-name Republicans repudiated the chosen GOP candidate and backed Hoffman. Scozzafava's decision to drop out of the race and endorse Hoffman only added to the spectacle.

While it's probably true that the NJ and Virgina races turned mostly on local issues, that's a bright spot for us here locally, as we anticipate that in the U.S. Senate race (and perhaps some other down-ballot races), the White House and Obama are expected to strenuously defend Obama's old Senate seat from presumed GOP nominee Mark Kirk. Obama's inability to transform his star power to local Dem candidates bodes well for negating the boost that Obama's personal stamp might bring to the Dem Senate nominee, which we current presume will be the lackluster and ehtics-challenged Alexi Giannoulias.

Fox once again has it right:

So the setbacks demonstrate the difficulty of presidential leadership following a campaign built on promises of unity followed by divisive policies and a relentless campaign approach toward big legislative issues like the stimulus and health care bills.

"What this is tonight, this victory here tonight, is a warning shot, and it says to the moderate Democrats in the House that they ought to think twice about continuing to pursue the policies of this White House and (House Speaker) Nancy Pelosi," said Virginia Republican Rep. Eric Cantor.

Dems, of course, would like to believe that NY-23 was the only race that was a referendum on the Obama agenda, but it seems to me that the opposite is true. NY-23 was a lot more about GOP self-destruction than the triumph of Obamapolitiks.

In fact, NY-23, is a prime example of what happens when the GOP turns to fratricide and cannot settle on a consensus candidate to do battle with the Dems.

It's a lesson to be learned here in Illinois where some conservatives continue to insist that the only way to victory is to throw all non-believers off the reservation and abandon support of Congressman Mark Kirk, who is the only GOP contender that has any hope to take on the Dem war machine and win the U.S. Senate seat in November 2010.

UPDATED 12:30 p.m.: Here's a Daily Herald article that gives the perspective of new IL GOP leader Pat Brady on the local implications of the result of NY-23 here for Mark Kirk's senate bid. Brady appears to dismiss the chances of conservative candidates such as Pat Hughes to mount any kind of serious threat to Kirk. I agree, of course, but I found it telling that the head of the state party agrees too.

Kirk and Roskam: Federal Government Must Set a Timetable for Withdrawal from Private Business

From Congressmen Mark Kirk and Peter Roskam:

Federal Government Must Set a Timetable for Withdrawal from Private Business

Treasury provided $217 billion for ownership and loans to 8 major corporations;

GM, AIG and Citigroup alone cost taxpayers more than $70 billion in common stock losses;

CIT Group bankrupt on Sunday: Taxpayers lost $2.3 billion

Kirk and Roskam: “The Federal government should not be in the business of running private companies.”

CHICAGO – Citing massive financial losses at companies bailed out by the Treasury, U.S. Reps. Mark Kirk and Peter Roskam today unveiled legislation establishing a timeline for the U.S. Government to withdraw from its ownership of several private companies. The Taxpayer Investment Protection Act requires the federal government to divest its common and preferred stock interests of private companies purchased under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-343) by Dec. 31, 2010.

“Last year, the Congress followed the recommendation of the Fed and Treasury to avert a financial crisis with the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act,” said Congressman Kirk, a member of the House Appropriations Financial Services Subcommittee. “Once approved, Treasury officials expanded funding beyond anything Congress intended, taking control of companies whose losses accelerated under government management. Last night, CIT Group went bankrupt after its taxpayer bailout, costing $2.3 billion. These government investments lost taxpayers more than $70 billion. Congress should set a timetable for a withdrawal from private company ownership before even more money is lost. The government is a very poor manager of private companies.”

"My constituents have had enough of the government spending billions of taxpayer dollars to control more private business, which only hurts our ability to create jobs and continues to plunge America even further into debt,” Congressman Roskam said. “Under TARP, the federal government effectively became CEO of a range of major private U.S. employers. With unemployment nearly 10% nationally after being promised no higher than 8%, we can see just how inefficient the government is at fostering real job growth.”

Congress authorized the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) to purchase "troubled assets," focused on buying mortgage-backed securities. After enactment, Treasury officials then dramatically expanded bailout funds to go beyond loan purchases, actually buying stock in big failing businesses, including automakers who were asked to become “banks” to be eligible.

The U.S. Treasury committed taxpayer funding for the following companies:

· Bank of America: $35 billion in preferred stock
· Chrysler: $12.5 billion in common stock and notes
· General Motors: $49.5 billion in common stock, warrants and notes
· Citigroup: $45 billion in common stock
· AIG: $40 billion in common stock, plus amounts outstanding on a $30 billion U.S. Treasury line of credit
· Hartford Financial Services: $3.4 billion in preferred stock
· Lincoln National Corporation: $950 million in preferred stock
· GMAC: $884 million in common stock

In many situations, the taxpayer is a majority or part owner of a company that continues to lose money.

· In the case of General Motors, President Obama's former "Car Czar" estimated that the taxpayers’ $49.5 billion interest in GM is now worth only $25 billion. While sales for private-owned Ford Motors fell only 6 percent in September, government-owned GM saw a 45 percent decline.
· AIG has lost even more taxpayer money. With a market value of only $3.5 billion, taxpayers lost $36.5 billion of their original $40 billion common stock investment.
· With a market value of $33 billion, Citigroup lost $12 billion of taxpayers’ original investment of $45 billion.

A copy of the Taxpayer Investment Protection Act is below, and a graphic depicting U.S. Treasury investment in private companies is attached.

111th CONGRESS

1st Session

To prohibit the Federal Government from holding security interests, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
DATE

Mr. Kirk of Illinois introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services

A BILL

To prohibit the Federal Government from holding security interests, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Taxpayer Investment Protection Act of 2009'.
SEC. 2. DEFINITION.
In this Act--
(1) the term `ownership interest' means an interest in a troubled asset described in section 3(9)(B) of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (12 U.S.C. 5202(a)(1)), as in effect on the day before the date of enactment of this Act, that was purchased by the Secretary under section 101(a)(1) of such Act (12 U.S.C. 5211(a)(1)); and
(2) the term `Secretary' means the Secretary of the Treasury.
SEC. 3. SALE OF FEDERAL CORPORATE PROPERTY.
(a) DIVESTITURE- Except as provided in subsection (b), the Secretary shall divest the Federal Government of any ownership interest not later than December 31, 2010.
(b) Conforming Amendment- Section 3(9) of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (12 U.S.C. 5202(9)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking `; and' at the end and inserting a period;
(2) by striking `means--' and all that follows through `residential' in subparagraph (A) and inserting `means residential'; and
(3) by striking subparagraph (B).
(c) Deposit of Funds-
(1) IN GENERAL- Section 115(a)(3) of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (12 U.S.C. 5225(a)(3)) is amended by striking `outstanding at any one time'.
(2) DEPOSIT OF FUNDS INTO TREASURY-
(A) IN GENERAL- On and after the date of enactment of this Act, all repayments of obligations arising under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (12 U.S.C. 5201 et seq.), and all proceeds from the sale of assets acquired by the Federal Government under that Act, shall be paid into the general fund of the Treasury for reduction of the public debt, in accordance with section 106(d) of that Act (12 U.S.C. 5216(d)), as amended by this subsection.
(B) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Section 106(d) of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (12 U.S.C. 5216(d)) is amended by inserting `, and repayments of obligations arising under this Act,' after `section 113'.
(d) Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation- Nothing in this Act may be construed to impede the ability of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to maintain the stability of the banking system.
SEC. 4. OVERSIGHT BY FINANCIAL STABILITY OVERSIGHT BOARD.
Section 104(a) of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (12 U.S.C. 5214(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2), by striking `and' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking the semicolon at the end and inserting `; and'; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
`(4) reviewing the implementation of section 3 of the Taxpayer Investment Protection Act of 2009.'.
SEC. 5. REPORTS REQUIRED.
(a) Reports on Winding Down or Divestment-
(1) REPORTS REQUIRED- The Secretary shall submit to Congress periodic reports on the plans of the Secretary for compliance with this Act, providing detail on equity divestiture plans and return of capital for the following corporate investments:
Bank of America: $35 billion in notes and preferred stock
Chrysler: $12.5 billion in common equity and notes
General Motors: $49.5 billion in common and preferred equity, notes
Citigroup: $45 billion in common stock and notes
AIG: $40 billion, applied to acquire 79.9% of equity, plus amounts outstanding on a $30 billion line of credit
Hartford Financial Services: $3.4 billion in preferred stock
Lincoln National Corporation: $950 million in preferred stock
GMAC: $884 million in common equity
(2) TIMING OF REPORTS- The Secretary shall submit the reports under paragraph (1)--
(A) not later than Jan. 1, 2010; and
(B) each month thereafter until all ownership interests are divested under section 3(a).
###

The Smoke Clears In Wake of Petition Filings... Now Off to the Primaries (UPDATED)

Well, now that the excitement of the filing deadline for nomination petitions is in the rear view mirrors, let's look at the couple of races we've been covering to see exactly what happened.

In the U.S. Senate race, we had a bit of a surprise with conservative candidate Pat Hughes apparently filing early yesterday (despite his claim that he purposely was holding back so he could appear last on the ballot), and then withdrew his filing and refiled later in the day. While one might assume this was all according to plan, the word TA hears is that some Hughes supporter mistakenly sent in a page which was filed, and then Hughes had to withdraw that and file his complete set of petitions. If correct, it doesn't speak well of Hughes' organization, once again. But interestingly, even though another conservative contender, Eric Wallace, decided not to file after all, two other candidates, Bob Zadek of Rockford and Tom Kuna of Jerseyville, filed AFTER Hughes, so unless both of these men get knocked off the ballot in a challenge, Pat still isn't going to be last.

As we've said before, we don't think the ballot position is particularly important in a top-tier kind of race like U.S. Senate, so this is mostly a lot of posturing for nothing. Maybe more interesting is whether Wallace's withdrawal will portend a conservative rally around Hughes, but the fact that Wallace did not endorse Hughes immediately either means that Wallace is still smarting from the previous suggestion from one of Hughes' operatives that Wallace should get out of the race, or that Wallace is going to hold out until Hughes does some serious tush-kissing of Wallace (which Pat, being a proud guy, is going to loathe). Whether any of this could put any other candidate in spitting distance of Congressman Mark Kirk, is questionable, even under the best of circumstances for them.

On the Dem side, several new candidates also filed, joining the pack of Giannoulias, Hoffman, Jackson and Meister- we now have Robert Marshall of Burr Ridge, Corey Dabney of Aurora, and Willie Boyd, Jr. of Greenville. Green candidate LeAlan Jones of Chicago also filed.

Things are also interesting in the 10th District, where two other Democratic contenders join Dan Seals and State Rep. Julie Hamos. Highland Park attorney Elliot Richardson, who was actually the first Democrat to officially announce for the position, if I recall, finally got his petitions turned in the other day, and a Milton Sumption of Lake Bluff also filed.

On the GOP side in IL-10, in addition to Bill Cadigan, Beth Coulson, Dick Green, Bob Dold, and Paul Hamann, Patricia Bird of Mount Prospect surprisingly filed after all, and an Arie Friedman of Highland Park also filed. Richard Mayers of Chicago, a Green Party candidate, also filed.

That all I have time for this morning, but we'll be looking at downballot races as the days go by, including the 59th Legislative District as that primary battle heats up, and may even look at the Guv race, although lots of other blog dissect that better than we can.

UPDATED 10:00 a.m.: Over at Illinois Review, camp Hughes (via Charlie Johnston) explains what happened with the Hughes filing yesterday, which confirms our understanding as we reported it, but you can read it from the horse's mouth at IR if anyone is that interested.

Latest U.S. Senate Race Filings in Illinois (UPDATED x2)

There are some recent candidate filings in the race for U.S. Senate in Illinois to report. Pat Hughes, a conservative candidate for the GOP nomination, filed this morning, although he had stated that he was planning to wait until the last minute to file to try to get the last space on the ballot. Whether this is imporant or not, he filed at 10:52 this morning, according to the State Board of Elections website, so I don't know if he gave up on that or what. Another conservative candidate, Eric Wallace, is also expected to file today but hadn't, yet, so I'm not sure what's going on with the Hughes strategy. If it means anything, TA hears that Hughes supporters were still circulating petitions at the Bears game yesterday, so it will be interesting to see how many total sigs he files with.

Ed Varga, an engineer who announced that he was running for the GOP nod, decided against the race and will not run, according to the Northwest Herald, but hinted that he might run in the general as an indepdendent.

Interestingly a candidate for the Green party, LeAlan M. Jones, of Chicago, filed last Friday. You can expect the Dems to challenge the petitions of the Green candidate, as they often do, as the Green party candidate usually takes more voters away from the Dems than the GOP.

Since today is the last day to file, we'll have more info later on the U.S. Senate Race and other races.

UPDATED 3:40 p.m.: Pat Hughes just filed ANOTHER 'something' with the SBE time stamped at 3:05 p.m. Um, usually you can't file petitions in a piecemeal fashion, so I have no idea what's going up. What I do know, though is that Bob Zadek filed at 3:14 p.m., so it would seem that assuming Zadek's petitions are deemed valid if challenged, he's currently the 'last' place ballot guy, unless Eric Wallace swoops in later today (as we expect).

What's Hughes thinking?

UPDATED x2 3:55 p.m.: In the U.S. Senate race, GOP candidate Tom Kuna filed at 3:24. Also of more local interest, in the 59th District, Vernon Hills Trustee Cynthia Hebda filed later this afternoon and will face off against Dan Sugrue and Mohan Manian in the primary to replace former State Rep. Kathy Ryg's seat (Dem contenders are incumbent appointee Carol Sente and also Buffalo Grove Mayor Elliot Hartstein).

TA hears that Hebda was convinced very late in the filing period to make a run and had to scramble to get petitions signed and filed. She is expected to have a lot of support centered in the Vernon Hills area, including help from current Mayor Roger Byrne, whom Hebda had previously challenged for the Mayor's office.

Republican Jewish Coalition Hosts 10th District Campaign Forum on November 15th

(TA Note- We've bumped this post back up to continue our discussion on IL-10 since Halloween is now over. Hope you didn't eat too much candy!)

Early in the campaign season, my friend Dr. Michael Menis, who heads the Chicago chapter of the Republican Jewish Coalition, called to tell me that the RJC planned to sponsor a GOP 10th District candidates forum after petitions were filed. That was a welcome relief, as the RJC always does a great job with events, and that left TA off the hook for trying to organize something to showcase our candidates.

Well, it's now about time to publicize that event, which will be held on Sunday November 15th, beginning at 6:00 p.m., Renaissance North Shore Hotel, 933 Skokie Blvd., Northbrook, IL 60062. There is a charge if you are not an RJC member, and RSVPs are required, so check the link for all of the details.

We've been talking quite a bit about the race for U.S. Senate here in Illinois, so let's use this as an excuse to get back to the 10th District and ask everyone to chime in on who you are supporting for the GOP nomination to succeed Mark Kirk in IL-10. You will notice the new "endorsement" bar on the right side of the page, and you may also notice that there is no endorsement (yet) for IL-10. So, let's hear your best arguments for each candidate and help us sort this out.

As usual, let's try to remain as positive as possible (understanding that part of primary races is to compare and contrast), but at the least, let's be respectful and polite. Thanks.