Alexi Giannoulias talks about the importance of 2010 Elections

Alexi Giannoulias returned to the South Suburbs to talk to voters about why this election is as important as any other. Alexi first talks about his work as Treasurer and his support for his Chief of Staff. He turns to his own race in part 2:

Alexi Giannoulias Fires Up the Vols

On September 28th, volunteers from all over the nation got together to knock on doors on behalf of Democratic candidates. Alexi Giannoulias, Illinois' Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate seat once held by Barack Obama, came to Chicago Heights to talk to its volunteers before heading out the door.

He was introduced by Sen. Toi Hutchinson. Cook County Board of Review Commissioner Brendan Houlihan also joined us.

Volunteers from this location ended up knocking on 1500 doors on Saturday. The enthusiastic send-off by Alexi Giannoulias didn't hurt. It is amazing how well Alexi connects with the volunteers and voters of Illinois. We received a terrific response from voters in reaction to Alexi's candidacy and his focus on jobs for Illinois!


You can donate to Alexi's campaign here or sign up to volunteer here...

Throw the Bums Out

Newsflash: voters are angry. Democrats will try to knock on 200,000 doors tomorrow and I'm betting some of them will be surprised.

I got a glimpse of that today. I was out running errands in my "League of Conservation Voters" shirt -- which almost everyone misreads as "League of Conservative Voters" -- and the check-out lady asks me, "so who do you vote for?"

Now I have to say that I was taken aback. I mean, I don't usually have checkers try to engage me in political discussions and I almost never know what shirt I'm wearing (guy, so who cares what clothes I have on -- I figure I'm lucky when they "match"). But after a momentary pause, I say, "I'm voting Democrat."

And she replies, "I usually vote Democrat, too, but I'm just so frustrated this year."

In one sentence, a nice elderly woman has captured the mood of the electorate here in Illinois.

"when are they going to tell you how they're going to solve all these problems?" she asks.

YES! Now we're on my ground!

"Well," I respond, and then give a brief version of my 'we live in a complex world' speech which always begins the same way: "We've tried all the simple answers, and when those didn't work, we're left with the difficult ones." But what politician is going to tell you that the problems that remain are the ones that earlier politicians couldn't solve because they demand more difficult, and probably more complex, solutions?

Because, you know, politicians avoid telling hard truths like children avoid brushing their teeth or taking their medicine.

Probably for the same reasons.

Now, you want to give away Ice Cream? That always gets a crowd.

Politicians tend to want to be liked. It's part of their genome. So the expectation that a group of people who mostly need to be liked could solve some of the country's most difficult problems -- like unemployment, a sour economy, health care, racism, etc etc -- might be a bit far fetched. You know, if you really think about it.

Which I suspect most people don't.

Don't get me wrong. There are really smart people thinking about solving the challenges we face. One of them, right here in Illinois, ran for an open seat in the Illinois House recently. He talked a lot about issues and how we could go about dealing with some of the greater challenges faced in the state.

And he lost. Which didn't surprise me.

I know of another one who decided to leave the Illinois House this year and run for a different office. When I saw him down in Springfield, I asked if he'd be coming back in the future. "There are other offices where we need your help," mentioning one specifically.

But I'm pretty sure that he got the hell out of Dodge because he was frustrated by the actual pace of change in Illinois' capital. Molasses moves faster. And I know that he's interested in real solutions, in helping real people, not just perpetuating the same ole, same ole down there.

And then there's Toi Hutchinson and Robin Kelly. I'll feign no pretense of objectivity here. I know them both personally, they are very smart women from my little part of the South Suburbs (South of I-80) who care deeply about their jobs in government and how government can help people. Sometimes I wonder if this isn't a novel concept in Illinois.

For their belief that government can and should be used to help people who need its help, both are endangered in the upcoming elections. Here you have two accomplished black women who really believe in government as a force for helping people and they are swimming against the tide of anger that is out there. It's a lot easier to sell a message of fear right now than it is to hype Hope and Change.

Robin Kelly is proud of the work that the Illinois Treasurer's office has done under her leadership (she's Chief of Staff to Illinois Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias). They returned the office to professionals, which meant that they kept the competent Republicans who were brought in by the previous (GOP) Treasurer. But this little bit of professionalism means that Robin's opponent has almost a direct line into what they've accomplished and what her campaign's message would be.

You know, as long as she keeps it positive.

Ah, the moral dilemma of being one of the good guys. Her opponent faces no such qualms. He works for a company that has numerous contracts with state government, and will do very well with one of its own in the Illinois cabinet. Which, no doubt, means that he'll personally profit from his election. Power and money, to boot! Who could want more?

To an outsider, that's what is wrong with Illinois. I used to think that Illinois was just a *lot* more tolerant of corruption, but in the last year or so, it seems to me that Illinois actually prefers the corrupt. Maybe it's just that corrupt politicians are more predictable, leading to that all-important "stable" economic environment. I'm clueless why the electorate would go along with it, but that's Illinois. And we're different!

I know I'm supposed to be proud of that. If I could just wrap my brain around it.

Toi Hutchinson is an appointed state senator, replacing Debbie Halvorson, which means she's facing the voters in her district for the first time. In a normal election cycle, we'd say that Toi had the same odds as a non-incumbent, 50-50. You'd be forgiven if you concluded that they are a little worse this year, given the state of the economy. All the challenges of being an incumbent in a "throw the bums out" election cycle with none of the advantages.

Toi is proud of what she's been able to accomplish in her short term. The Illiana Expressway, which will bring jobs to her district. The re-writing of the law to insure that rape kits actually get tested.

But these women stand for election not only in a piss-poor economic environment, but also standing up against the prevailing winds. You see, they believe in government, that government can be a force in our society FOR GOOD, and that government should act as a check and balance against the free market that isn't exactly particular about who profits from the invisible hand or why. Ok, I'm projecting on that last one. I *think* that they agree with me that government should serve as a greater check against the free market, but you'd have to ask them.

Some people think I have radical views. Wouldn't want to project those on politicians I like.

The thing is that they are pretty much standing alone. Oh, sure, there's Barack Obama, but that's not what I mean. What politicians are out there defending government, acting as if they believe that it can be a force for positive change in people's lives, not "the problem?"

More to the point, who among us is arguing the same thing?

Yep, people are angry, and they can't really count on too many people because we've been deceived into the idiom that "government is the problem, not the solution."

The fact is that the free market won't start producing the "small business" jobs that everyone seems to be waiting for because banks are not really inclined to lend them money. Consumers are being more careful with their money, paying down their debts instead of starting up another widespread spending spree. Would-be entrepreneurs -- at least those who can't start off in their garages -- are thinking about if they want to risk exposure to such a crappy economy.

And the one place that could be creating jobs right now? Oh, we don't want no damn government jobs, because that's just wrong. No one knows why (government salaries get spent, too, and spread far and wide into the economy). They just believe that it does.

Now I'm interested in power. I don't worry too much about the wonky stuff, even in the areas I have some expertise in, because it's not nearly as interesting as *power.* I might be one of the few, because it seems to me that we Americans have no problem ceding power to the invisible hand, but we're almost paranoid about governments exercising power, even when it would make us all better off. That's just silly ideology deceiving us.

As a student of power, I don't want the government to have too much, just as I don't want the market to have too much. But there doesn't seem much chance for the government to gain too much power, because of the knee-jerk response the electorate seems to have when even a little bit of power gets exercise. Like bailing out a crashing market. Or the housing bubble. Etc etc.

But we don't have any trouble with the market exercising too much power. Bernie Madoff? Just an aberration (yeah, right). It's ok because every American wants to get rich. And if a few people (*gag*) get ripped off along the way, well, we take great comfort that the bastard's in jail. The fact that the market doesn't adjust itself -- let alone regulate itself -- is far too easy to ignore when everybody is doing it.

Plus, what are drugs and alcohol for?

Nope, better to be suspicious of the only country-wide institution that could actually help us out of this depression-like economy. Just because.

This is a very powerful country and that power is based extensively on the massive free market economy that serves as its foundation. I understand that nothing that powerful ever wants to be checked, let alone balanced, but it's better for all of us if it is. Power should never be concentrated in one set of hands (no matter how many hands they actually are). No, power should be dispersed, not concentrated, and a powerful free market economy *demands* a powerful government that can regulate and right it. If an amoral force like our free market economy is left unfettered, than the Bernie Madoffs of the world have an open season on all of us. But that's not the point.

The point is that voters are angry, and part of their anger is that they feel abandoned. The economy stinks and they think that there is no one there to help them out. Keynesians would argue that this is exactly when the government should be going all out to right the economic ship of state. But Keynesians soiled their argument by overspending during the years of plenty and not paying down the debts incurred during the years of want.

Yep, voters are angry and we're just not taking their concerns seriously. I mean, COME ON! Tell me a single politician's plan for reviving the economy and creating jobs that is not only credible (seems like it could work) AND gets paid for at some point in time? Maybe I missed one.

I have to say that I do get a kick, though, out of the people that keep demanding that Barack Obama get a backbone because at least he's making an effort at the argument. Yes, the president thinks government can be a force for Hope and Change in our country, he really does. But, in the end, he might be one of the few who does. And like Robin Kelly and Toi Hutchinson, he's standing against hurricane-force winds. The only way to withstand that force is to stand together. There aren't enough people, it seems to me, willing to join 'em.

Voters have every reason to be angry at all of us. The easy answers have been tried. The one's that remain are real bitches. Just like FDR in the great depression, we got to start trying things and, when those fail, try some more. Except that FDR didn't have a sceptical electorate who had been "trained" to think of government as the problem. And that's where we got to start. Change starts by changing minds. It's really the only hope that good government types like Robin Kelly and Toi Hutchinson have.

Tomorrow, Democrats want to knock on 200,000 doors across the country. Some of the canvassers are going to be in for a rude awakening. But, then, some people who open their doors to us will be, as well. But it's a conversation that we have to have. This is our moment. This is our time. And we *are* the change we've been waiting for. I heard that someplace...

Concerns about Alexi Giannoulias misguided

Republican Congressman Mark Kirk, taking his cues from Karl Rove, wants everyone to know that "people are concerned" about his Democratic opponent, Illinois Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias. One of these "concerns" that people are supposed to have is over Alexi's fund-raising prowess.

You see, Alexi only raised $1.2 million to Kirk's $2.2 million in this quarter. Kirk, of course, has benefitted greatly from his support from Wall Street firms and Big Banks, which he voted to bail out in the fall of 2008. And they are certainly rewarding Kirk for his support for the big banks.

Alexi, though, has taken a different tack. His ethical guidelines prevent him from taking money from corporate PACs, like those who have contributed more than 2 million dollars to Mark Kirk. Alexi is running to represent Illinois in the U.S. Senate, not Wall Street. Kirk has already proven he'll sell his vote to the highest bidder (which rarely includes Illinois).

But, like most of Kirk's criticisms of Alexi, this one doesn't stand up, either. Alexi is squarely in the middle of Democratic Senate candidates, both incumbents and non-incumbents. No reason for concern -- unless you're Mark Kirk.

Alexi raised more money than Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Spector -- who's in a tight primary race right now. He raised twice as much as Democratic candidates in New Hampshire, Indiana and Ohio:

NV SEN: Sen. Harry Reid $1.75M
NY Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand $1.6 M
MO Sec/State Robin Carnahan ~$1.5 M
CO Sen. Michael Bennet $1.4 M
IL Treas. Alexi Giannoulias $1.2 M
PA Sen. Arlen Specter $1.16M
NH Rep. Paul Hodes $665 K
IN Rep. Brad Ellsworth $625 K
OH LG Lee Fisher $550 K
LA Rep. Charlie Melancon $543 k

So what's all the fuss about? Oh, yeah. Instead of talking about jobs, Kirk wants to attack Alexi. Instead of talking to the people of Illinois, Kirk wants to -- remember? -- attack Alexi. Whatever the question is, Kirk's answer is to attack Alexi.

The Karl Rove school of politics. Divide the nation, and suppress the vote. Sound familiar?

Democrats are supposed to be demoralized because we've nominated a bright, young, attractive reformer to be our nominee to fill Barack Obama's U.S. Senate seat. While Alexi Giannoulias can point to his head-of-the-pack leadership to save the jobs at HartMarx, Mark Kirk can point to... ANOTHER ATTACK on Alexi Giannoulias. Sense a theme here?

Mark Kirk thinks we're stupid. He thinks that if he can make Alexi a bad boy, Democrats will stay home, not vote or skip the race. And you can understand why. Conservatives are too fond of Kirk. Kirk's actual base may not go far outside his North Shore Congressional District. You won't see any Mark Kirk signs at a Tea Party rally (and don't say his name too loud, if you go). They aren't fans.

Alexi faces a stiff head wind. The national political environment doesn't favor Democrats. The economy is still in the dump for many of us. And Kirk is one of the most formidable candidates Republicans could offer.

But this is Illinois, and -- more importantly -- this is Barack Obama's old seat. Mark Kirk wants to make this race about Alexi Giannoulias, because he understands that Illinois would never elect him if this were about issues, if this was about who bests could represent OUR state in the U.S. Senate.

As this quarter's fundraising totals suggest, Mark Kirk has stepped-up his game. And now Alexi Giannoulias needs to do so, as well. Alexi remains an overly cautious candidate, one who stays well within his comfort zone. He's going to have to step outside that comfort zone and start pushing the envelope. But, in the end, this election is going to be about Illinois, not Alexi Giannoulias. It's going to be about who can best support our favorite son, in his Agenda for Hope and Change in Washington, D.C.

We understand that the East Coast corporate Fat Cats like Mark Kirk. There was really never any question about that. The question is, will Illinois elect someone who will carry Mitch McConnell's and the conservative Southern Republican leadership's water. Because no one expects Mark Kirk to bring an independent voice to the Senate. He's been George Bush's and Donald Rumsfeld's trooper in the House, and you can reasonably expect him to be Mitch McConnell's trooper in the Senate.

Illinois can do better than Mark Kirk, and we will...

Mark Kirk fails to answer questions (again)

Half way through the latest Congressional vacation, the AP headline said it all: Kirk won't say if he wants health care repealed. Kirk won't say -- again. Still. In perpetuity.

Mark Kirk is more than willing to talk to the New York Times and the Washington Post. He'd tell them, *if* they were interested in the Senate election here in Illinois. He's their boy. The ultimate D.C. insider, Mark Kirk is quick for a quote to the ultimate beltway insider media. But if the people here in Illinois have a question?

Mark Kirk won't say.

Mark Kirk had two weeks to spend here in Illinois. Did he sit down with the major media outlets like Alexi Giannoulias did for a whole day in the last month? Nope. Kirk couldn't be bothered.

Did Kirk spend more than a few minutes taking questions at any of his appearances around the state? Not according to any report I've seen.

Makes you wonder what Mark Kirk is hiding.

Look, I understand. Mark Kirk voted to bail out the big banks, but criticized Alexi Giannoulias for the fact that his family's community bank is in trouble. We'd like to know why Kirk wants to save the banks that have been his faithful campaign donors, but is so cavalier about banks that actually help people here in Illinios. And we'd like to know why Mark Kirk assured the conservative Club for Growth that he'd lead the efforts to repeal this historic Health Care Reform law, but has now changed his mind. Kinda sound familiar? He did the same thing with Cap and Trade. First he was for it, then he's against it. About what you'd expect from the ultimate Washington, D.C. insider.

People here in Illinois want to understand Mark Kirk's role in the GREATEST INTELLIGENCE FAILURE in our lifetime. We want to know why Mark Kirk has never stood up and voted against his very conservative leadership without their permission on a single whipped vote. We want to know why Kirk always seems to say one thing in private and another thing in public. We understand that Kirk has been dominated by powerful figures -- eg, Donald Rumsfeld and George Bush -- and we are concerned that Kirk will go to the Senate and be dominated by powerful figures (like Mitch McConnell or John Coryn). We wonder why Kirk is so secretive and why he seems to know more about China than he does Illinois. Most of all, voters in Illinois are concerned that Mark Kirk is more likely to represent the hyper-conservative Republican leadership than he is the state (and voters) of Illinois.

This two-week Congressional recess should have given voters (and media) in Illinois the opportunity to get our questions answered. But Mark Kirk won't say.

These questions have been around for awhile (hence the video above). But Kirk continues to run a stealth campaign. An inside-the-beltway campaign. We get that Mark Kirk is a busy man, an very-important-person inside the D.C. beltway. But now he wants our votes to represent our state in the Senate seat formerly held by the President of the United States. Here in Illinois, we are still proud of our presidents. So electing someone who's primary goal will be to prevent our favorite son from achieving the goals that this country elected him to do doesn't exactly seem in our best interests.

But Mark Kirk won't say. Is it arrogance? Hubris? Are we an inconvenient burden for Kirk? Or has Kirk simply decided that we don't deserve to understand his thinking, or that he doesn't deserve to explain his part in our government failures?

Mark Kirk won't say, so he's attacking Alexi Giannoulias for things over which he (Alexi) had no control. Mark Kirk assured his constituents that he knew where the WMDS were in Iraq, but he won't explain why none have been found. Yet he was directly responsible for making that assurance -- assurances you can be sure he also made to the New York Times and the Washington Post in the run-up to our invasion of Iraq.

I get it. We're just little people here in Illinois. And Mark Kirk is a Very Important D.C. Insider. We shouldn't question him. We should just take the scraps that he's given us and accept them. Hey, isn't Kirk waving a flag? See! That should be good enough!

In other words, Kirk is telling us to trust him.

I don't know about you, but I'm not exactly in a trusting mood with regard to politicians. Especially Very Important D.C. Insiders. If Mark Kirk won't answer our questions, then Mark Kirk doesn't deserve our votes. Kirk represents what is wrong with Washington, D.C. He certainly hasn't demonstrated any interest in fixing the place.

Illinois Statehouse News offered another, more telling headline last week: Mark Kirk Says he won’t lead. This is a Senate seat with some history to it. Some of us would like a Senator who can lead, someone who can stand up to powerful interests (like Michael Madigan) and come away with a victory. We don't need a Senator who always says No -- there are things we'd like the Federal Government to do. We need a Senator who knows how to say Yes to Illinois, Yes to Illinois' interests and will represent them when he goes to Washington. The choice couldn't be more stark -- Mark Kirk, the ultimate beltway insider, or Alexi Giannoulias, an independent reformer who listens to the people here in Illinois and has gone out of his way to answer our questions...

Not even his supporters Trust Mark Kirk

You can't trust Mark Kirk. Even the right-wing conservative Club for Growth doesn't trust Kirk:

Now the Club for Growth, the powerful, well-funded conservative group, is ripping into Kirk for his sudden indecision, and making it clear that they expect him to live up to his promise.

“He said that he’s going to do this,” Club for Growth spokesman Mike Connolly just said by phone. “We expect him to live up to his pledge.”

Kirk has signed on to the Club’s repeal pledge, which states: “I hereby pledge to the people of my state to sponsor and support legislation to repeal any federal health care takeover passed in 2010, and replace it with real reforms that lower health care costs without growing government.”

“He’s made a promise to the people of Illinois,” Connolly continued. Asked if failing to follow through could cost Kirk the Club’s support in a general election, Connolly said: “We’ll have to see.”

The Club's concern comes after Mark Kirk "repeatedly" refused to say "whether he wants the legislation repealed."

Mark Kirk is campaigning for Barack Obama's old U.S. Senate seat with a Beltway Insider strategy. He doesn't talk to Illinois voters, or local media, although he continues to take calls (and get covered) by the New York Times and Washington Post. But they don't ask him tough questions (like would he really -- REALLY? -- follow through with his pledge to repeal universal coverage, or ending denial for pre-existing conditions, or the practice of recission and lifetime limits on health coverage.

Instead, Mark Kirk dodges questions by Illinois voters and local media.

Apparently, because Kirk believes he can. Kirk's strategy in this campaign has been to attack Alexi Giannoulias for whatever he can think of. Broadway Bank followed the advice of the Federal Reserve and U.S. Attorney General's office with regards to enticing members of organized crime into disclosure and participation in the (above ground) economy? Mark Kirk won't tell you that numerous mobsters have been convicted and sent to prison (eg, Al Capone) because of the disclosure statements they gave to bankers -- because that would make his personal attacks on Alexi seem, well, ridiculous.

Nor will Mark Kirk tell you if he really means it when he promises to take away health care insurance from kids, young adults and older Americans.

The question we should ask ourselves is this: if Mark Kirk's most adament supporters can't trust him, why should we?

The dilemma Illinois voters face in contemplating their vote for U.S. Senate is this: Mark Kirk has never demonstrated any type of political courage during his service in Congress. He didn't stand up George Bush or Donald Rumsfeld when they were making decisions to invade Iraq based on the greatest intelligence failure in my lifetime. He's never stood up to the conservative Republican leadership on a whipped vote (without their permission) since he's been in the U.S. House. And now he can't stand up and admit that he's taken a controversial decision, one that isn't supported by the electorate here in Illinois or stand up to the right wing conservative Club for Growth when they are demanding that Kirk stick to his pledge.

You just can't trust Mark Kirk. He's never given us reason to trust him, and now his supporters are starting to recognize Kirk's lack of fortitude. There's no reason for Illinois to send him to the Senate. These tough times demand someone who can help bring the country forward, out of the abyss into which George Bush has driven us...

Former Rep. Robin Kelly Runs for Illinois Treasurer

In a packed room in Chicago, Robin Kelly, former state Representative for the 38th district and current Chief of Staff to state Treasurer, Alexi Giannoulias, announced her own bid to become Illinois' state Treasurer on Monday.

Robin was introduced by Michelle Mills, who testified to Robin's presence as a role model in so many people's lives, Ralph Martiere, who observed that, if Robin is elected, there won't be a scandal in the Treasurer's office, and Debra Graham, who became friends with Robin after Robin had endorsed her opponent to the Illinois General Assembly.

This video lasts little over 13 minutes.



Disclosure: I am coordinating Robin's petition drive to get on the ballot.