Republicans have a long way to go to win President Barack Obama’s old Senate seat. But focusing their attacks on Obama would be the wrong strategy. The president remains popular in his home state, which is precisely why Republicans must refocus the race around the Illinois Democratic Party’s ties to corruption and constantly remind frustrated independents of the tainted Blagojevich administration. To win, Republicans need to link Alexi Giannoulias (who eked out a tough primary fight over David Hoffman) to Roland Burris and former governor Rod Blagojevich, who was impeached after being indicted on charges relating to an alleged attempt to sell the Senate seat.
Republicans immediately moved to do precisely this on Wednesday morning when the Republican Senatorial Committee released this devastating ad ripping Giannoulias for his questionable ties to organized crime and his connections to Blagojevich, asking viewers directly: “is this change you can believe in?” Given the fact that Republicans do not hold a single statewide office and 900,000 voted in the Democratic primary, compared to only 740,000 in the Republican race, the GOP will need to keep pounding away at Giannoulias’ weak spots. Republicans plan to emphasize Giannoulias’ ties to two controversies. First, when he was state treasurer, Giannoulias ran a college savings program that sustained roughly $150 million in losses (some of which has since been recovered). Second, Giannoulias’ family bank made several controversial loans, most prominently, a $15 million loan to real estate agent and political fund raiser Antoin Rezko, (whose rap sheet includes convictions for fraud and bribery). Along with these two weaknesses, Republicans also need to bang away at Giannoulias’ considerable ties to Blagojevich. Giannoulias’ brother is a two-time Blagojevich appointee, and there are more than a few photos of Giannoulias and Blagojevich to run in advertisements. Republicans are fortuitous that the former governor’s trial will begin in the midst of campaign season.
Giannoulias’ counter-punching strategy seems to be to paint Kirk as a Washington insider, but this strategy will probably be heavily blunted by Giannoulias’ image — in the eyes of many Illinois voters — as something worse: an old school, Chicago-style politician. Illinois may be the only state in the union where the voters will take Washington style politics over their own state’s political culture. Beyond these attacks, Mark Kirk will also have to focus on winning independents. On this, Kirk, if he manages his message properly, should have a clear and decisive advantage over Giannoulias. First, Giannoulias will attempt to brand him as a conservative ideologue. But Kirk can rebut by reminding voters of his prior support for cap-and-trade and his pro-choice stance on abortion. Second, Kirk can then bang away on the economy and on job creation, and emphasize his willingness to work with the Democratic congress in Washington. If Kirk can do this, he will have a good chance of overcoming his voter deficit by winning disgruntled Democrats and independents away from Giannoulias and taking back the Illinois Senate seat.
So far, Kirk is saying all the right things. On Wednesday, he focused on the issue on the mind of every Illinois voter — Republican or Democrat — saying: “Underneath every issue in Illinois is corruption. The one-party state is not working.” Kirk nailed it; and now needs to get out and say it again.


































chicago_guy // Feb 5, 2010 at 5:44 pm
I hope Kirk stays on this theme all spring long, so that Giannoulias reputation is so tattered by summer that it’ll be time for re-set on the race, and Lisa Madigan takes over as the Dem nominee.
Kirk’s fine, and is probably closer to the general tenor of the state than any other statewide Republican, but in the Senate, he’d be nothing but a boy-toy for the brain-dead Dixiecans whose politics are antithetical to a moderate state like Illinois.
Peter Fitzgerald saw the writing on the wall; he knows how pointless it is to be a moderate Republican in Washington these days, and he got out before he wasted any more time. Kirk’s heading down the same path; if he had the stones, he’d come out and defend his votes on cap and trade and lay out a case for modernization of our rickety health care system (and by “modernization”, it means “looking at what more successful competitor nations are doing, and using their models). But he’s not that guy. He may have served in war zones, but he’s no Teddy Roosevelt.
Damn shame that he isn’t. Maybe folks like me that used to trust Republicans more than Democrats would be willing to back a guy like that.