Cue the countdown for Mark Kirk's next campaign-related meltdown:
Michael Steele has reportedly withdrawn his sole endorsement for Illinois Representative Mark Kirk in his bid for the U.S. Senate seat currently occupied by Roland Burris, according to the Chicago Daily Observer.
The Observer article doesn't reveal where it learned the information, and RNC officials contend that Steele never officially endorsed Kirk's candidacy.
The RNC is furiously trying to push back, claiming that Steele had never made an endorsement in this race. But given quotes like these, it is hard not to conclude that the RNC is merely arguing over semantics:
“I’m so excited about Mark Kirk and his race,” Steele said on the on a WLS radio show. “We were all kind of sitting around with bated breath as he was making his decision, a very personal decision, a family decision, to run for the Senate.”
Asked about the Democratic leaning of Illinois in recent years, Steele said, “I would just ask that the good people of Illinois give us a fair shot, give Mark Kirk a fair shot to state the case for why his leadership is important at this time for the state.”
Hmmm...that certainly sounds like a man who is anointing Mark Kirk as the GOP nominee.
Of course, that was part of the deal.
Lest we forget, it was Kirk himself that parachuted in, and then out, of the U.S. Senate race back in July. The impetus for his wavering, at the time, was the refusal of fellow Illinois Republicans to unilaterally endorse his candidacy against the (then) challenge of former state party Chairman Andy McKenna. It was only when McKenna was persuaded to drop his Senate bid (this week he announced a bid for Governor, instead) that Kirk reconsidered and elected to make the race for the U.S. Senate.
Steele's apparent refusal to take sides in the Illinois GOP Senate primary is a tacit victory for Patrick Hughes, a relatively unknown Chicagoland developer who is challenging Kirk from the right. Hughes also released a poll this week showing him only thirteen points behind the well-known Congressman, who was drawing an anemic 24% of the vote.
Think Progress is reporting that Mark Kirk's vote on cap-and-trade back in June might still be causing lingering resentment among conservatives. Kirk has been trying to walk it back ever since, making the rather absurd claim last week that he voted for it in the House, but would vote against it in the Senate, with a rationale so thin that it was impossible to conclude that it was anything other than a flip-flop of epic proportions. His rationale (that the bill would benefit his district, but would not benefit the state of Illinois was also dramatically different than his rationale back in June:
At the time of his vote, Kirk cited “national security” considerations, “arguing that a modest carbon tax would spur development of domestic energy sources and reduce dependence on oil controlled by Saudi sheiks and Venezuelan dictators.”
Democrats also have a primary here, with presumptive favorite Alexi Giannoulias (the state treasurer) being challenged by Urban League President Cheryle Jackson and former Chicago inspector General David Hoffman.
One would suspect, however, that the Democratic primary may lack the sheer pugilism that seems to be brewing over on the GOP side.