Comments on: Tensions rise quickly after Blago’s defiant move

By: Ken Stevens

Ken Stevens — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 09:23:50 +0000

Interesting scenarios presented, but, in the absence of proof of specific illegality by Burris, I see no reason why the Senate should not seat him. He’s entitled to be judged on his own merits (just like any other Senate appointee in any other state and whether the appointer is a Democrat or a Republican). He’s obviously just going to be a placeholder until the next election, whether that election is held in 2009 or 2010. There’s no way he’d be elected then. It’s not like he’d be getting the appointment to a guaranteed lifetime job.

By: Jaxx Raxor

Jaxx Raxor — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 05:47:55 +0000

Ron,It is true that if Kirk gave up his House Seat that Democrats would be overwhelmingly favored to take it. On the other hand, Kirk, as well as the National and Illnois GOP, probably prefer the idea of taking a Senate seat from Democracts, and the symoblic value of taking President Obama’s Senate seat is very appealing. In the next election cycle Senate Republican’s have little focual points for offense: Illnois would be an opportuinty that they likely wouldn’t get again in long time.

Losing a House seat out of 435 in comparision is probably a minor loss, especially with Illinois GOP still being pretty weak everywhere in the state, let along the Chicago suburbs where Kirk’s seat is. The main issue would for Kirk: would he be willing to risk losing a house seat that is pretty safe for him for a chance of moving up to the upper chamber? If their is a special election for the Senate seat in 2009, then Kirk wouldn’t have to retire from the house to run in the Senate, and if he did win, the GOP would be more than happy with losing Il-10 as a result. The real issue is that if there is no 2009 special election, will Kirk run in 2010? Because you then have the possiblilty of the GOP losing both Il-10 and the Senate seat.

As bad as it may be for Illinois Democrats, it is still a strong Democratic state with a bench that is much deeper if not much stronger than the GOP. Any Republican other than Kirk would running for the Senate would have a disadvantage, despite the Blagoveich thing. Roskam would number be number 2: he won big in his district (Il-06) despite Obama carrying it by double digits, and of course he narrowly defeated Ducksworth in 2006 in what was one of most watched races of that cycle. However Roskam is a relative political novice and it’s important to note that his district actually leaned slightly Republican in 2000 and 2004, while Kirk’s district has generally leaned Democrat, including out of state nominee’s like John Kerry. He would probably outright struggle against Lisa Madegien and would probably be behind all the other Democrats in mid single digits (with the exception of course Burris as the nominee).

There aren’t really anyone else the GOP has to offer that could be competive in a statewide race against a anti-Blagoevich, clean Democrat.

By: Ron

Ron — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 05:08:46 +0000

The problem for Kirk is that his House seat would be almost certain to go to Democrats without him running.

By: Jaxx Raxor

Jaxx Raxor — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 04:05:29 +0000

The amount of race baiting by some black politicians and Blagovich is rather appalling. Certainly it would be rather embarssing for the Senate (especially the Democrats) to refuse the only black member of the chamber, but it would be even worse for Democrats to allow him to stay, if not for Democrats nationally, than at least (and especially) in Illnois. That Obama is against Burris filling his seat does give Reid some valuable cover, and I think that any political damage in terms of loss black support will be minimal. For one, it is primarly African American Elites (i.e. some members of the Congressional Black) and they probably have limited influence in effectively punishing the Democrats, especially when the new Senator would be appointed by a corrupt Governor. It is hard to see Bobby Rush or anyone else act against many pieces of Obama’s agenda as retailation because alot of what Obama wants to do will will help the Black community alot. More importantly, the African American masses (myself included) will probably not feel like retailation because of the specfic situation this is.

One thing that is clear, and one thing Taniel will probably need to do in his next Senate rankings, is that this appointment makes Illnois the Democratic seat most vulernable to take over. Democrats had been pushing against a special election, but because of the appointment there is little chance that they can avoid one now. Of course, even if there is no special election, the taint of Blagoveich will likely induce Republican Mark Kirk to run. In my opinion, he is not only the strongest Republican, but he is strong enough to make the Illnois senate race a toss-up (with perhaps an exception for the Illnois attorny general Lisa Madegin, in which the race would probably lean Democrat) no matter if it was a 2009 special election or the regular 2010 election. The issue was that he would be less likely to run as a non-incumbent in 2010 than in 2009. These events mean that he is all but certain to run in a 2009 special election and is probably more willing to give up his house seat for a 2010 run because of the taint that Blagoveich has.

All an all, this will be a massive distraction for Democrats who prefer to work on the massive stimulas package that everyone is talking about.

By: fritz

fritz — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 03:18:27 +0000

That last question is the one that interests me the most. There is a good chance that by next week Blagojevich will be indicted, as the 30 day time frame from the original arrest is coming Jan. 9th. If this happens the pressure on Blogo to quit will be huge.
Assume he does and Quinn is his replacement. He could then,in theory name the Senator. We could then have two appointments and if the Quinn appointment is not black there would be hell to pay.
Whatever happens Obama should stay as far away as possible from it.