When Kirk pulled out his yellow-highlighted list of mobsters that Giannoulias gave loans to as senior loan officers at his family’s Broadway Bank, Giannoulias pulled out his own list of five felons Kirk has taken campaign contributions from over the years.
But Kirk said the difference was he had returned those loans “The instant we knew about criminal activity.”
The testiest exchange came when Kirk accused Giannoulias of flip-flopping on President Bush’s Troubled Asset Relief Program, which Giannoulias has said he would have voted for but would have insisted on more safeguards to prevent the big banks for mis-using the money.
Giannoulias complained that Kirk voted for that bill but against President Obama’s follow-up bills and the bills to prohibit banks that took the money from giving executives big bonuses.
“Congressman Kirk, because he’s bought and paid for by the corporate special interests, voted against it,” Giannoulias said. “That’s the fundamental difference. I never said I was against it.”
Kirk contended Giannoulias, the first-term state treasurer, displayed his “immaturity” by “trying to have it both ways” in saying he would have voted for the Congressional bailout of financial institutions while wanting more oversight in the legislation.
Kirk also accused Giannoulias of flip-flopping by saying he did not favor reopening the North American Free Trade Agreement, though the Democrat’s Web site proposes to seek more labor and social protections. Giannoulias “wanted to start a trade war,” Kirk said, prompting the Democrat to interject that the Republican’s statement was “absolutely unequivocally untrue.”
The two began talking over each other so much that Kirk asked the show’s host, Phil Ponce to restore order. “Do you want to moderate this?” Kirk asked.
Questioned on his vote for the Iraq war, Kirk, a five-term Congressman, criticized the way intelligence gathering was handled. On reports that Iraq was pursuing nuclear weapons, Kirk said, “I think that we were lied to in the end, by the deputy director of national intelligence absolutely.” Questioned on the point, Kirk backtracked, saying the intelligence was wrong.
Giannoulias pounced on Kirk’s answer, saying, “He actually convinced other members of Congress that he knew to a moral certitude” that the Iraq war was necessary.
[Kirk] returned repeatedly in the debate to his credentials as an endangered moderate. “The path to partisanship,” Kirk said, “is the path to leadership” in the House of Representatives, explaining that he’d deliberately sought Democratic co-sponsors and consensus causes.
“Most Americans are centrists and moderates who want to make things happen and the question is who represents us,” he said. “I’ve tried to be very moderate, very centrist, very coalition-building.”
Giannoulias also said that he will not be running negative ads from here on out. However, the DSCC is still up with negatives and isn’t going to stop.
For the first half hour, I could not decide whether Alexi Giannoulias was a punk, or a spoiled rich brat who did not want Kirk to be allowed to speak! I got to the point where I half expected him to start going “LA-LA-LA-LA-LA!” during Kirk’s answers.
He actually had some decent points, the Kirk contribution list thing was very good theatre, and he had Kirk on the defensive at times. But the constant interruptions were just juvenile, bordering on arrogant. Later in the debate, when the flame-throwing toned down, he slanted nearly every answer to attack Kirk, and thereby lost many key chances to define himself as a mature leader. Near the end, he finally started making positive statements about caring for people, and looked much better . . . until he started in on Kirk once again!
Ponce seemed pointed against Kirk to me, but I’m partisan. I did notice that the vast majority of questions were fired at Kirk, and he sure let Giannoulias cut off Kirk as often as Alexi wished. One statement from Ponce would have stopped that nonsense cold, but he would not say it.
Kirk just blew both Giannoulias (and Ponce) out the door on the foreign policy and war issues. He sure looked like a man we need debating those issues in Washington. Alexi never did.
It reminded me of a horse race, in which Giannoulias sprinted out to a lead into the first turn, but Kirk slowly passed him on the backstretch and was comfortably pulling away by the finish line.
It is absolutely ridiculous for Kirk to say Giannoulias “wanted it both ways” by saying he’d have voted for the TARP yet would have wanted it run with firmer assurances from the banks. It was a Republican administration that fashioned the program in such a way that financial institutions weren’t required to give appropriate assurances concerning use of the funds (bonuses, maintained or increased level of loans, etc.). Is Kirk going to give up the right to ever criticize the way a program has been run, even if he voted to authorize it? That was bush league.
–“Most Americans are centrists and moderates who want to make things happen and the question is who represents us,” he said. “I’ve tried to be very moderate, very centrist, very coalition-building.”–
Strangely enough, that’s a pretty bold statement from a GOP nominee for U.S. Senate in 2010, and certainly not drawn from the national playbook. He must be feeling pretty good about his right flank.
Kirk spoke — dare I say it — the truth about what the majority of Americans want. If he’s elected and lives up to that, Karl Rove will want his money back.
I actually thought Kirk made a great point with the “have it both ways” comment. As a Senator or a Congressman you almost always are voting on imperfect bills. If Alexi really thinks that a freshman senator can craft and pass a perfect bill then he is too immature and foolish to be elected.
- ChrisChicago82-Independent - Thursday, Oct 28, 10 @ 7:32 am:
I watched the debate again last night before going to bed.
Being as objective as I can (mind you I voted for Kirk) here are some more in depth observations:
1. I think I can see a little more clearly where SHORE was coming from in comparing Alexi to a college basketball team that comes out firing, then fades away by the end of the game.
As I re-watched the debate I saw, within the first half of it, that Alexi was pretty much attacking every breathe Kirk took, let alone every word he spoke.
While some might disagree with me, and al though his behavior at times got rather juvenile, I think Alexi was able to handle himself very well on the character attacks Kirk put upon him. Even Mike Flannery, of Fox Chicago, said that Alexi, more so then in the other two debates, seemed to have finally found his footing when being attacked character wise.
Yet… once we reached the half way point, it pretty much became a Kirk forum, and an impressive one at that.
When talk turned to foreign policy, Alexi got in only a few sentences in, while Kirk seemed to dazzle both Ponce and his opponent. Actually, it was the first time since voting for Kirk that I actually felt “proud” of my vote, as opposed to thinking “I picked the lesser of two evils.” Within the 2nd half of the debate Kirk just came off more Senatorial due to his wonkish nature, and made me think “Ok… this guy NEEDS to be on the Senates Armed Services Committee.”
2. If this was a battle for moderates, Kirk not only won, but so overwhelmingly that I’m actually worried he might have scared off a little bit of his conservative base.
Even Ben Smith of Politico was amazed at how un-Republican like Kirk came off, especially when taking a Colin Powell like position and admonishing the Bush administration for the lies perpetrated in Iraq. It was a little bit surreal to hear a GOP member say that.
3. As I woke up this morning I saw another negative ad towards Kirk on television. It made laugh for a minute. Alexi should have never promised to go “positive,” last night. The reason being because he has no control over the DSCC and their ads. When Alexi comes out and “disarms,” people are going to want to SEE that result. Yet, when they still see negative ads playing, even if they are not coming directly from Alexi, it just wont sit well with some people, you know?
4. I said it last night, and I will say it again… Ponce is a horrible moderator. Al though I like his “outside the box” questions, the man spent the first half, to me, cracking down harder on Kirk, then, to make up for it, letting Kirk pretty much own the 2nd half of the debate. If the camera wasn’t on a two shot I would have forgotten Alexi was there during the final half hour!
Overall Score:
It really depends on how much of this you were watching. If you watched the whole debate it is a draw. If you watched the second half it is Kirk by 10 miles. And if you watched the first half it is either, again, a draw, or a slight edge to Alexi for coming better prepared for the character attacks.
Overall… if Kirk was truly up 4% before the debate last night, he will be up 4% points today. Just no real movement of which to speak of.
Thanks for letting us comment on here Rich. I appreciate it. Despite the differences of opinion many of us have, I really enjoy this site. It is not slanted one way or another among those of us who comment, and everyone (for the most part) is very respectful.
When the debate/race turned to foreign policy it was over and almost unfair. 25 minutes of debate prep on Iran for alexi could not compare to 25 years of daily work on the subject for kirk. Kirk ended the last several questions with the answers that americans and pundits always complain they don’t get from politicians which is a stand to be moderate thoughtful leaders. It was sweet icing on a well baked cake.
the 4 newspapers that did not endorse the congressman will see the debate this morning and start rethinking their decision making process.
for those that live outside the chicago area, kirk mentioned some lock project on the mississippi river which was notable because I think it was the only time either of them mentioned something outside the chicago area.
I’m a Democrat. A Democrat who cannot believe that our candidate is a lightweight punk whose greatest strength is his self confidence.
Kirk blew him out of the water last night, even in the face of a list of felons who contributed to his campaign. Kirk has been smart before, but last night he was strong, Senatorial, even amusing. and if he loses, we will all be saying along with him,
“I can’t believe this guy beat me.”
I think Alexi looked very tired, bags under his eyes and a light pallor.
I did like the debate format.
- Louis G. Atsaves - Thursday, Oct 28, 10 @ 9:07 am:
The Sun-Times is reporting that the Lake County Democrats “Victory” mailings propping up Labno were co-funded by the Giannoulias campaign.
- Cool Hand Luke - Thursday, Oct 28, 10 @ 9:21 am:
Like most Republicans that fall somewhere in between “moderate” and “conservative”, I will cast my vote for Kirk but only as “the lesser of two evils”. That is the bitter pill that awaits most conservative Republicans on Tuesday.
Kirk has returned to his roots here and gave all. Conservatives are voting for him so he walked back to the political center and demonstrated why he is so appealing to moderates and independants. Kirk shone.
Giannoulias went into this debate knowing he had to find 5 percent more support. You can see that he also gave it his best shot. He campaigned. He attacked. You do that when you are behind and have only one debate left.
Kirk was a senatorial candidate but Alexi was not. Even after a year coveting and spending millions Giannoulias did not bother to do any homework beyond sound bites. Instead of showing what he learned Alexi could not cntribute to the foreign policy conversation between Kirk and Ponce.
Obviusly Giannoulias thinks money and connections buy a Senate seat. Last night Alexi showed all of us the limits of charm In the 21st Century and in the U S Senate we need someone willing to not only do their homework but do it quickly with decision with understanding and with at times even a sense of bluster.
Kirk is a Senator ready man. Giannoulias is a charming rich young lazy man.
the question though is that this is a democrat state and so at the end of the day is democrat and stupid better to voters than moderate/republican and smart?
civil? how do you be civil to a self-admitted liar who has repeatedly been found by the fact checkers to have lied about you?
i watched the world series game, but tuned in a couple of times before my wife got annoyed. the first two times, mark kirk outright lied to us. i assume he continued to do so throughout the night. i completely understand that this is illinois, where liars and thieves are preferred in its politicians because at least we know what their price is. and i’ll admit that mark kirk certainly fits in.
but to *pretend* that kirk has credibility — with us, with the world, and especially in congress — seems self-delusional to me. of course ponce was one-sided! what journalist likes to be lied to? (and, ftr, ponce’s producers pretty much told candidates in advance that they’d be given free reign in these debates.)
alexi giannoulias has gone toe-to-toe with one of the best “presenters” that the republican party has. the difference is that alexi will go to the senate and actually influence other members.
mark kirk left that ability on the floor in 2003, when he bullied fellow members of congress — some of whom are now in the senate — into invading iraq because “he knew” there were weapons of mass destruction in iraq because of his ’special’ military intelligence “knowledge.” liar…
shore: mark kirk is an idiot. it’s absolutely flabbergasting that you would consider him “smart.” have we lost our standards of what defines intelligence, too???
Recent WikiLeaks release confirm the presence of chemical weapons in Iraq. What say you now?
I just finished watching this debate. Kirk cleaned Alexi’s clock. This debate only reinforces recent polling showing Kirk with a small but steadily increasing lead.
This race is over, and I take back my recent prediction that this race would not be called on election day. Kirk +4%.
I have to give Alexi points, especially on the criminal donators. As he election gets closer Alexi is looking more polished and Kirk is becoming more unraveled… the oppositie of what i was expecting.
I seriously question Kirk’s chops to do the job as more time passes. Also Kirk made it very clear that he is not a moderate, he ran as a conservative who now opposes his own votes on moderate legislation.
So bored now you did not watch the entire debate but still believe that the candidate you have been relentlessly and blindly attacking for the past eight months is an idiot.. How closed is your mind? And if it really is as closed as it appears today then in what way could we believe you are qualified to call anyone an idiot?
- Hold My Nose And Vote - Thursday, Oct 28, 10 @ 10:02 am:
I live in the 10th district and have voted for Kirk in every congressional election.
In the early part of the debate, I felt that Kirk wanted to keep it negative. Alexi said several times, lets discuss issues, but Kirk kept going back to the personal ethical negative points. Which maybe why Ponce let Alexi interrupt Kirk often.
I think Alexi did better than Kirk initially. He was much better prepared for this debate.
I personally wanted more discussion about economic, national and foreign issues. When they starting talking about issues, I thought Kirk understood them better and gave some of his best responses.
I’m going to call it a draw. I’m giving credit to Alexi for pushing the debate to issues.
Kirk should have gone more to issues. He showed much more knowledge and depth. He definately out did Alexi in that part of the debate.
bored, all 3 of kirks degrees are superior to alexi’s. This is particularly significant when you note that kirk comes from a middle class family and had to compete in the toughest high school in the country, newtrier. Whereas alexi went to the posh francis parker where b- students get into ivy league schools and never have to worry about student loans, competition or any of the other challenges regular folks face, kirk had to earn his entrances and then build his career without his daddy’s money buying him the endorsement of popular politicians.
Kirk put on a show last night. As I said in my debate blogging, Alexi had clear instructions from blago’s spinmeister giangreco (who sweet says was there doing rapid response) who must have told him unequivocally he had to stay on the offensive all night long and get a game changer performance to save his campaign. When the debate turned to foreign affairs kirk manhandled alexi (like an opposing qb on cutler) which left the young turk speechless, nodding in agreement and completely off whatever game plan had been plugged into him.
For the record I thought ponce was against alexi not against kirk or pro kirk or pro alexi. He did a very good job and has handled now in succession 3 of the most consequential debates in the wttw senate democrat primary in 04 and senate general in 04 and done very well.
We can debate whether or not removing Saddam from power was a benefit to the people of Iraq or not. But the debate over the WMD is nothing more than a diversion from that debate.
There is evidence that there were indeed WMDs in Iraq, which is what the intelligence from all the intelligence services of all the countries (not just the US) said at the time, and what legislators on both side of the aisle used to form their opinions on the justification for war. Do not call Kirk a bully and a liar, as bored now does, for his actions based on this intelligence. Furthermore, WMD was only one of ten articles in the war resolution (which many would argue is a lesser important issue in the justification). Also remember 126 Democrat members of the House and 29 Democrat members of the Senate voted to approve the resolution.
While the cost in lives and treasure are undeniably high, it remains to be seen whether or not the world is better with Saddam gone. Only history will prove if Kirk was right, and most would rather have him making these choices than a Senator whose major claim to fame is knowing how to work a low post position. Proof of the electorate comes this Tuesday.
Cincinnatus: don’t be stupid. the fact that there *were* chemical weapons in iraq a decade before we invaded does not get kirk off the hook. it wasn’t even the question of whether or not chemical weapons were in iraq that was so offensive to MEMBERS OF CONGRESS. it was that mark kirk bullied other mc’s, inferring that his military background gave him special knowledge, knowledge that was being kept even from members of the intelligence committee (starting a scramble among intel committee members to find out what that was).
mark kirk lied. mark kirk lied to his fellow members of congress. mark kirk lied simply because his current “powerful friend” was adamant about something that didn’t exist. mark kirk lied to US last night, trying to brush off ponce’s question about why he’s never passed any legislation of substance — hey, he’s great at getting those birthday bills passed! — trying ro use his appropriations committee membership as an excuse. what a card he is.
this is a great example of how mark kirk can’t be considered “smart” by any objective standard. he got played by donald rumsfeld, but at least he presented someone else’s bull effectively, right? mark kirk is an idiot…
VanillaMan: sorry, i’m not from illinois, and i haven’t really adjusted to the special standards were corruption and liars are preferred over honest men. consider it a fault of mine.
yes, my mind is made up. i’d hardly consider it honest of you to infer that everyone here’s mind isn’t made up! of course, again, i’m not from illinois, so we clearly have different standards for political conduct.
i always ask people the same thing when they argue that mark kirk is intelligent: have you ever talked to him (about a subject in which you were knowledgeable)? because i have. mark kirk is an idiot based on my own conversation with him about something in which i was quite knowledgeable. he’s not an original thinker, and i don’t particularly care to be represented by someone who can’t think for himself…
Cincinnatus: so we invaded iraq — and wasted TRILLIONS of dollars we didn’t have — because saddam hussein wasn’t “a benefit to the people of Iraq?”
this is exactly why i am no longer a republican. we *aren’t* the world’s policeman, we can’t afford to be and we can’t succeed at forcing other nations to bend to our will. iraq is now a lot closer to iran than it was, and closer to iran than it is to the united states.
and mark kirk pretends that he cares about iran. what a card!
that’s about as funny as kirk pretending that he cares about the national debt, when that one decision cost us more in silver than anything else since he’s been elected. but i always said lying to yourself is the dumbest thing any person can do…
- ChrisChicago82-Independent - Thursday, Oct 28, 10 @ 10:45 am:
“I meant, Alexi was better prepared for this debate, than the previous one.”
Couldnt agree more. Alexi was much more prepared for the character attacks then last time.
However (sadly for him), no amount of preperation could really help him during the 2nd half of the debate.
Like you, I really wish Kirk gravitated towards the issues earlier because the man is just hands down more fluent in wonkish-speak then Alexi.
I live in the 10th district too. Who are going going to vote for (or did you vote for)? Seals or Dold?
I voted for Dold, but think Seals should be able to pull it off. Afterall, this is his 3rd straight time on the ballot.
–We can debate whether or not removing Saddam from power was a benefit to the people of Iraq or not. But the debate over the WMD is nothing more than a diversion from that debate.–
You brought up the “diversion” to the debate, not I.
With all due respect to the people of Iraq, our actions weren’t for them. The war was sold as being in the interests of the people of the United States because Saddam was in league with Al-Quada and had or was developing weapons of mass destruction that posed a threat to our existence. “We know where they are,” Rummy said.
That’s what sold me and many others on the war. And it was nonsense, as many of the powers that be knew at the time.
Who was the big winner? Put it this way: when top American official goes to Baghdad, they sneak them in. When Ahmadinajad, visited Baghdad, he was greeted like a hero with an open-air ceremony at the airport and rolled through the city like JFK in Dallas.
As you might imagine, Iraq is a particularly sensitive topic with me, considering that my wife’s family was forced into exile a few years ago by murderous theistic thugs. So let’s tread lightly and try to move the heck on. Thanks.
- ChrisChicago82-Independent - Thursday, Oct 28, 10 @ 11:09 am:
BORED…
Obviously all of us have our preferences as to who we do or do not like as a candidate. However, it is always important to try and be as objective as one can be.
Reading through your comments, the term “blind bias,” comes to mind. It is not because you support Alexi, but because you paint Kirk as something of a political disease, failing to give him credit for even the slightest of things.
At least in the case of myself, Shore, and several others here, even if we support Kirk (more then Alexi, that is) we are very quick to always give Alexi credit when and where credit is due.
Do you have ANYTHING positive to say about Mark Kirk, or is the rage that blinding?
And please… keep the response respectful.
- Joe from Joliet - Thursday, Oct 28, 10 @ 11:10 am:
==…Kirk is becoming more unraveled.==
Jim, is that you? That sounds like something my brother would say. He is deeply devoted to his Action Alerts and dutifully regurgitates the “talking points” as instructed.
persnickety: i have! an observant person might have realized that i don’t make any ridiculous claims about alexi! i understand that kirk thinks very highly of himself (which isn’t a fault, every politician needs to do that in order to survive the assault by the press and intellectual snobs like me!); i’m merely pointing out that passing off kirk’s high opinion of his intelligence doesn’t make one, well, intelligent…
- ChrisChicago82-Independent - Thursday, Oct 28, 10 @ 11:12 am:
Sorry to hear about your wife’s family, Rich. I didn’t know.
ChrisChicago82-Independent: you must be new here. i’ve noted many times that mark kirk is one of the best presenters out there. he’s well known for his powerpoint presentations, and was considered the go-to guy on the republican side for presentations when he was a staffer. think tanks continue to like the way he synthesizes and conveys other people’s ideas.
i personally see this as a double-edged sword. i’m not sure that being one of the best presenters of likud’s (or donald rumsfeld’s) ideas is something we should prefer, but there’s no question that kirk has superior presentation skills…
Alexi went to Francis Parker? isn’t that where Edwin Eisendrath went to school? that would explain lots about both of them. snarky.
- ChrisChicago82-Independent - Thursday, Oct 28, 10 @ 11:24 am:
“no question that kirk has superior presentation skills.”
Well… that’s better then nothing.
- Hold My Nose And Vote - Thursday, Oct 28, 10 @ 11:50 am:
ChrisChicago82-Independent….I’m still holding my nose on deciding between Seals and Dold.
I attended the debate between Seals and Dold in Arlignton Heights. I was disappointed that Seals primarily just spouted the party line.
I talked with Dold afterwards. He is articulate, has some depth of understanding, but I’m leery.
Both Seals and Dold made a big issue about small business being the catalyst for job creation, but neither offered any good ideas.
I believe the small business problem, is due to lack of demand. The lack of demand is due to too many manufacturing jobs lost and too much of corporate america off-shoring jobs. These are good paying jobs, that support the local communities, pay taxes and provide demand to small businesses.
I mentioned the off-shoring of jobs to Dold. He blamed it on uncertainty of business because of health care and cap and trade. I then pushed the question and gave him some facts about my company’s employment in the US. They have reduced the US headcount by 35K in the last 5 years and increased overseas headcount by over 60K.
His response was we need a R&D credit and more free trade. I told him I was not sure about more free trade, since we lost so many jobs from it.
I did not press the issue any more. Other people were waiting to ask questions.
ChrisChicago82-Independent: heh, it may not have been what you expected — and it’s certainly a double-edged sword — but kirk’s got mad powerpoint skills. there’s a reason why the think tanks, nytimes and washpost go to him for presentations. i was just giving the guy his due (and i’ve done so for quite a while)…
- ChrisChicago82-Independent - Thursday, Oct 28, 10 @ 1:19 pm:
Hold My Nose And Vote-”I’m still holding my nose on deciding between Seals and Dold.”
I will be honest with you… I can see your overall point, especially in regards to small business.
Al though I think Dold is FAR more versed in this matter (small business) vs. Seals (who not only has little experience in small business, but has technically been unemployed for years as he has made running for Congress a career of some sort), what Dold suggests is a mixed bag. On one hand, he acknowledges that free trade is somewhat out of control and that we need to offer higher incentive for corporations to keep their business (and employment) here. Yet, on the other hand, he doesn’t wish to limit or curtail the very root of the problem, which is free trade itself. Whether that is good or bad is debatable.
I think what Dold purposes is the more balanced of proposals you will hear from people, but a mixed bag nonetheless that doesn’t exactly guarantee immediate relief to small local businesses, nor does it ensure that jobs will be created here (it will certainly increase the chance, but far from ensures it)
With that said, while Dold certainly beats Seals in the “credentials” department on small business, it really is a draw in regards to ideas. Seals offers none, while Dold offers a mixed bag.
On another front, I have been looking at this race in more national terms as opposed to local since I will be leaving district 10 in a few months and moving to Lake in the Hills. As I view it in broader terms, I see two men who want to be like Mark Kirk, but just aren’t. I see one man who, by the admission of 2/3 of the editorial boards he went before, will vote along party lines a good deal of the time (Dold). And I see another man who is trying to make IL-10 forget about the elections of 2008 and 2006, where he ran as a self admitted liberal, by cloaking himself off as a moderate despite a near total agreement with the Obama agenda (al though NOWHERE near as bad as Alexi).
At the end of the day, Dold seems like the less risky choice for a moderate such as myself (especially when put up against a progressive wearing mere centrist clothing), but there is a degree of uncertainty and potential partisanship IL-10 will be subjected to if they go with Dold. In addition, his own conservative economic principles have the chance to box him in to his way of thinking, but the same goes for Seals.
Overall Advise: Whomever you choose, be cautious, and know there will be some drawbacks. If you want somebody who more closely resembles Kirk, by a hair, go with Dold. If not, go with Seals. But remember… neither are Kirk.
if it wasnt for how wacko the gop is nationally (and avowed in its commitment to obstructing all obama legislation here on out) then maybe i could have bought kirks moderate appeal and i wouldnt be surprised if a great many obama voters in the state do as detached from reality as kirk having the courage/desire to go against the gop is. but he definitely lost points being so petulant and condescending to alexi for not being in the military as an excuse for why it was ok for jirk to lie about it.
alexi seemed a little lightweight to me at times _ the ginny thomas question _ and i dont buy his claim of going against obama on the stimulus. but as someone who wants obama to succeed thats not really a negative.
- Tukas - Thursday, Oct 28, 10 @ 12:32 am:
Where were the other candidates? We are not seeing the entire choices available. This debate was flawed.
- Bubs - Thursday, Oct 28, 10 @ 2:27 am:
For the first half hour, I could not decide whether Alexi Giannoulias was a punk, or a spoiled rich brat who did not want Kirk to be allowed to speak! I got to the point where I half expected him to start going “LA-LA-LA-LA-LA!” during Kirk’s answers.
He actually had some decent points, the Kirk contribution list thing was very good theatre, and he had Kirk on the defensive at times. But the constant interruptions were just juvenile, bordering on arrogant. Later in the debate, when the flame-throwing toned down, he slanted nearly every answer to attack Kirk, and thereby lost many key chances to define himself as a mature leader. Near the end, he finally started making positive statements about caring for people, and looked much better . . . until he started in on Kirk once again!
Ponce seemed pointed against Kirk to me, but I’m partisan. I did notice that the vast majority of questions were fired at Kirk, and he sure let Giannoulias cut off Kirk as often as Alexi wished. One statement from Ponce would have stopped that nonsense cold, but he would not say it.
Kirk just blew both Giannoulias (and Ponce) out the door on the foreign policy and war issues. He sure looked like a man we need debating those issues in Washington. Alexi never did.
It reminded me of a horse race, in which Giannoulias sprinted out to a lead into the first turn, but Kirk slowly passed him on the backstretch and was comfortably pulling away by the finish line.
- Joe Blow - Thursday, Oct 28, 10 @ 5:13 am:
@ Bubs: I’m going with rich spoiled brat. Kirk looked more like a Senator and Alexi looked more like a entry level incompetent loan officer.
- RFK fan - Thursday, Oct 28, 10 @ 5:56 am:
It is absolutely ridiculous for Kirk to say Giannoulias “wanted it both ways” by saying he’d have voted for the TARP yet would have wanted it run with firmer assurances from the banks. It was a Republican administration that fashioned the program in such a way that financial institutions weren’t required to give appropriate assurances concerning use of the funds (bonuses, maintained or increased level of loans, etc.). Is Kirk going to give up the right to ever criticize the way a program has been run, even if he voted to authorize it? That was bush league.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Oct 28, 10 @ 6:32 am:
–“Most Americans are centrists and moderates who want to make things happen and the question is who represents us,” he said. “I’ve tried to be very moderate, very centrist, very coalition-building.”–
Strangely enough, that’s a pretty bold statement from a GOP nominee for U.S. Senate in 2010, and certainly not drawn from the national playbook. He must be feeling pretty good about his right flank.
Kirk spoke — dare I say it — the truth about what the majority of Americans want. If he’s elected and lives up to that, Karl Rove will want his money back.
- Bakersfield - Thursday, Oct 28, 10 @ 7:16 am:
I actually thought Kirk made a great point with the “have it both ways” comment. As a Senator or a Congressman you almost always are voting on imperfect bills. If Alexi really thinks that a freshman senator can craft and pass a perfect bill then he is too immature and foolish to be elected.
- ChrisChicago82-Independent - Thursday, Oct 28, 10 @ 7:32 am:
I watched the debate again last night before going to bed.
Being as objective as I can (mind you I voted for Kirk) here are some more in depth observations:
1. I think I can see a little more clearly where SHORE was coming from in comparing Alexi to a college basketball team that comes out firing, then fades away by the end of the game.
As I re-watched the debate I saw, within the first half of it, that Alexi was pretty much attacking every breathe Kirk took, let alone every word he spoke.
While some might disagree with me, and al though his behavior at times got rather juvenile, I think Alexi was able to handle himself very well on the character attacks Kirk put upon him. Even Mike Flannery, of Fox Chicago, said that Alexi, more so then in the other two debates, seemed to have finally found his footing when being attacked character wise.
Yet… once we reached the half way point, it pretty much became a Kirk forum, and an impressive one at that.
When talk turned to foreign policy, Alexi got in only a few sentences in, while Kirk seemed to dazzle both Ponce and his opponent. Actually, it was the first time since voting for Kirk that I actually felt “proud” of my vote, as opposed to thinking “I picked the lesser of two evils.” Within the 2nd half of the debate Kirk just came off more Senatorial due to his wonkish nature, and made me think “Ok… this guy NEEDS to be on the Senates Armed Services Committee.”
2. If this was a battle for moderates, Kirk not only won, but so overwhelmingly that I’m actually worried he might have scared off a little bit of his conservative base.
Even Ben Smith of Politico was amazed at how un-Republican like Kirk came off, especially when taking a Colin Powell like position and admonishing the Bush administration for the lies perpetrated in Iraq. It was a little bit surreal to hear a GOP member say that.
3. As I woke up this morning I saw another negative ad towards Kirk on television. It made laugh for a minute. Alexi should have never promised to go “positive,” last night. The reason being because he has no control over the DSCC and their ads. When Alexi comes out and “disarms,” people are going to want to SEE that result. Yet, when they still see negative ads playing, even if they are not coming directly from Alexi, it just wont sit well with some people, you know?
4. I said it last night, and I will say it again… Ponce is a horrible moderator. Al though I like his “outside the box” questions, the man spent the first half, to me, cracking down harder on Kirk, then, to make up for it, letting Kirk pretty much own the 2nd half of the debate. If the camera wasn’t on a two shot I would have forgotten Alexi was there during the final half hour!
Overall Score:
It really depends on how much of this you were watching. If you watched the whole debate it is a draw. If you watched the second half it is Kirk by 10 miles. And if you watched the first half it is either, again, a draw, or a slight edge to Alexi for coming better prepared for the character attacks.
Overall… if Kirk was truly up 4% before the debate last night, he will be up 4% points today. Just no real movement of which to speak of.
Thanks for letting us comment on here Rich. I appreciate it. Despite the differences of opinion many of us have, I really enjoy this site. It is not slanted one way or another among those of us who comment, and everyone (for the most part) is very respectful.
- shore - Thursday, Oct 28, 10 @ 7:32 am:
When the debate/race turned to foreign policy it was over and almost unfair. 25 minutes of debate prep on Iran for alexi could not compare to 25 years of daily work on the subject for kirk. Kirk ended the last several questions with the answers that americans and pundits always complain they don’t get from politicians which is a stand to be moderate thoughtful leaders. It was sweet icing on a well baked cake.
the 4 newspapers that did not endorse the congressman will see the debate this morning and start rethinking their decision making process.
for those that live outside the chicago area, kirk mentioned some lock project on the mississippi river which was notable because I think it was the only time either of them mentioned something outside the chicago area.
- Amalia - Thursday, Oct 28, 10 @ 8:42 am:
I’m a Democrat. A Democrat who cannot believe that our candidate is a lightweight punk whose greatest strength is his self confidence.
Kirk blew him out of the water last night, even in the face of a list of felons who contributed to his campaign. Kirk has been smart before, but last night he was strong, Senatorial, even amusing. and if he loses, we will all be saying along with him,
“I can’t believe this guy beat me.”
- Cincinnatus - Thursday, Oct 28, 10 @ 9:03 am:
I think Alexi looked very tired, bags under his eyes and a light pallor.
I did like the debate format.
- Louis G. Atsaves - Thursday, Oct 28, 10 @ 9:07 am:
The Sun-Times is reporting that the Lake County Democrats “Victory” mailings propping up Labno were co-funded by the Giannoulias campaign.
- Cool Hand Luke - Thursday, Oct 28, 10 @ 9:21 am:
Like most Republicans that fall somewhere in between “moderate” and “conservative”, I will cast my vote for Kirk but only as “the lesser of two evils”. That is the bitter pill that awaits most conservative Republicans on Tuesday.
- Wumpus - Thursday, Oct 28, 10 @ 9:22 am:
How can he call Kirk not a true conservative in those mailers, then call him a conservative in the debate..who you crappin, Ali G?
My guy won the debate.
I have seen more civil debates on the playground.
- VanillaMan - Thursday, Oct 28, 10 @ 9:25 am:
Kirk has returned to his roots here and gave all. Conservatives are voting for him so he walked back to the political center and demonstrated why he is so appealing to moderates and independants. Kirk shone.
Giannoulias went into this debate knowing he had to find 5 percent more support. You can see that he also gave it his best shot. He campaigned. He attacked. You do that when you are behind and have only one debate left.
Kirk was a senatorial candidate but Alexi was not. Even after a year coveting and spending millions Giannoulias did not bother to do any homework beyond sound bites. Instead of showing what he learned Alexi could not cntribute to the foreign policy conversation between Kirk and Ponce.
Obviusly Giannoulias thinks money and connections buy a Senate seat. Last night Alexi showed all of us the limits of charm In the 21st Century and in the U S Senate we need someone willing to not only do their homework but do it quickly with decision with understanding and with at times even a sense of bluster.
Kirk is a Senator ready man. Giannoulias is a charming rich young lazy man.
- shore - Thursday, Oct 28, 10 @ 9:33 am:
the question though is that this is a democrat state and so at the end of the day is democrat and stupid better to voters than moderate/republican and smart?
this we shall learn tuesday of next.
- bored now - Thursday, Oct 28, 10 @ 9:34 am:
civil? how do you be civil to a self-admitted liar who has repeatedly been found by the fact checkers to have lied about you?
i watched the world series game, but tuned in a couple of times before my wife got annoyed. the first two times, mark kirk outright lied to us. i assume he continued to do so throughout the night. i completely understand that this is illinois, where liars and thieves are preferred in its politicians because at least we know what their price is. and i’ll admit that mark kirk certainly fits in.
but to *pretend* that kirk has credibility — with us, with the world, and especially in congress — seems self-delusional to me. of course ponce was one-sided! what journalist likes to be lied to? (and, ftr, ponce’s producers pretty much told candidates in advance that they’d be given free reign in these debates.)
alexi giannoulias has gone toe-to-toe with one of the best “presenters” that the republican party has. the difference is that alexi will go to the senate and actually influence other members.
mark kirk left that ability on the floor in 2003, when he bullied fellow members of congress — some of whom are now in the senate — into invading iraq because “he knew” there were weapons of mass destruction in iraq because of his ’special’ military intelligence “knowledge.” liar…
- bored now - Thursday, Oct 28, 10 @ 9:37 am:
shore: mark kirk is an idiot. it’s absolutely flabbergasting that you would consider him “smart.” have we lost our standards of what defines intelligence, too???
- Cincinnatus - Thursday, Oct 28, 10 @ 9:50 am:
bored now,
Recent WikiLeaks release confirm the presence of chemical weapons in Iraq. What say you now?
I just finished watching this debate. Kirk cleaned Alexi’s clock. This debate only reinforces recent polling showing Kirk with a small but steadily increasing lead.
This race is over, and I take back my recent prediction that this race would not be called on election day. Kirk +4%.
- Ghost - Thursday, Oct 28, 10 @ 9:51 am:
I have to give Alexi points, especially on the criminal donators. As he election gets closer Alexi is looking more polished and Kirk is becoming more unraveled… the oppositie of what i was expecting.
I seriously question Kirk’s chops to do the job as more time passes. Also Kirk made it very clear that he is not a moderate, he ran as a conservative who now opposes his own votes on moderate legislation.
- VanillaMan - Thursday, Oct 28, 10 @ 9:52 am:
So bored now you did not watch the entire debate but still believe that the candidate you have been relentlessly and blindly attacking for the past eight months is an idiot.. How closed is your mind? And if it really is as closed as it appears today then in what way could we believe you are qualified to call anyone an idiot?
- Hold My Nose And Vote - Thursday, Oct 28, 10 @ 10:02 am:
I live in the 10th district and have voted for Kirk in every congressional election.
In the early part of the debate, I felt that Kirk wanted to keep it negative. Alexi said several times, lets discuss issues, but Kirk kept going back to the personal ethical negative points. Which maybe why Ponce let Alexi interrupt Kirk often.
I think Alexi did better than Kirk initially. He was much better prepared for this debate.
I personally wanted more discussion about economic, national and foreign issues. When they starting talking about issues, I thought Kirk understood them better and gave some of his best responses.
I’m going to call it a draw. I’m giving credit to Alexi for pushing the debate to issues.
Kirk should have gone more to issues. He showed much more knowledge and depth. He definately out did Alexi in that part of the debate.
- shore - Thursday, Oct 28, 10 @ 10:04 am:
bored, all 3 of kirks degrees are superior to alexi’s. This is particularly significant when you note that kirk comes from a middle class family and had to compete in the toughest high school in the country, newtrier. Whereas alexi went to the posh francis parker where b- students get into ivy league schools and never have to worry about student loans, competition or any of the other challenges regular folks face, kirk had to earn his entrances and then build his career without his daddy’s money buying him the endorsement of popular politicians.
Kirk put on a show last night. As I said in my debate blogging, Alexi had clear instructions from blago’s spinmeister giangreco (who sweet says was there doing rapid response) who must have told him unequivocally he had to stay on the offensive all night long and get a game changer performance to save his campaign. When the debate turned to foreign affairs kirk manhandled alexi (like an opposing qb on cutler) which left the young turk speechless, nodding in agreement and completely off whatever game plan had been plugged into him.
For the record I thought ponce was against alexi not against kirk or pro kirk or pro alexi. He did a very good job and has handled now in succession 3 of the most consequential debates in the wttw senate democrat primary in 04 and senate general in 04 and done very well.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Oct 28, 10 @ 10:04 am:
–Recent WikiLeaks release confirm the presence of chemical weapons in Iraq. What say you now?–
Dick Cheney, is that you? I’m glad that’s all cleared up now. I feel much better about the enormous cost, the loss of life and the empowering of Iran.
You really don’t want to go there. As Kirk said, we were all lied to.
- Hold My Nose And Vote - Thursday, Oct 28, 10 @ 10:07 am:
Additional comment about my statement that Alexi was better prepared for this debate.
I do not mean he was better prepared than Kirk.
I meant, Alexi was better prepared for this debate, than the previous one.
The last time Alexi hardly answered any questions directly, he just repeated the party line.
- Cincinnatus - Thursday, Oct 28, 10 @ 10:29 am:
wordslinger,
We can debate whether or not removing Saddam from power was a benefit to the people of Iraq or not. But the debate over the WMD is nothing more than a diversion from that debate.
There is evidence that there were indeed WMDs in Iraq, which is what the intelligence from all the intelligence services of all the countries (not just the US) said at the time, and what legislators on both side of the aisle used to form their opinions on the justification for war. Do not call Kirk a bully and a liar, as bored now does, for his actions based on this intelligence. Furthermore, WMD was only one of ten articles in the war resolution (which many would argue is a lesser important issue in the justification). Also remember 126 Democrat members of the House and 29 Democrat members of the Senate voted to approve the resolution.
While the cost in lives and treasure are undeniably high, it remains to be seen whether or not the world is better with Saddam gone. Only history will prove if Kirk was right, and most would rather have him making these choices than a Senator whose major claim to fame is knowing how to work a low post position. Proof of the electorate comes this Tuesday.
- bored now - Thursday, Oct 28, 10 @ 10:35 am:
Cincinnatus: don’t be stupid. the fact that there *were* chemical weapons in iraq a decade before we invaded does not get kirk off the hook. it wasn’t even the question of whether or not chemical weapons were in iraq that was so offensive to MEMBERS OF CONGRESS. it was that mark kirk bullied other mc’s, inferring that his military background gave him special knowledge, knowledge that was being kept even from members of the intelligence committee (starting a scramble among intel committee members to find out what that was).
mark kirk lied. mark kirk lied to his fellow members of congress. mark kirk lied simply because his current “powerful friend” was adamant about something that didn’t exist. mark kirk lied to US last night, trying to brush off ponce’s question about why he’s never passed any legislation of substance — hey, he’s great at getting those birthday bills passed! — trying ro use his appropriations committee membership as an excuse. what a card he is.
this is a great example of how mark kirk can’t be considered “smart” by any objective standard. he got played by donald rumsfeld, but at least he presented someone else’s bull effectively, right? mark kirk is an idiot…
- bored now - Thursday, Oct 28, 10 @ 10:39 am:
VanillaMan: sorry, i’m not from illinois, and i haven’t really adjusted to the special standards were corruption and liars are preferred over honest men. consider it a fault of mine.
yes, my mind is made up. i’d hardly consider it honest of you to infer that everyone here’s mind isn’t made up! of course, again, i’m not from illinois, so we clearly have different standards for political conduct.
i always ask people the same thing when they argue that mark kirk is intelligent: have you ever talked to him (about a subject in which you were knowledgeable)? because i have. mark kirk is an idiot based on my own conversation with him about something in which i was quite knowledgeable. he’s not an original thinker, and i don’t particularly care to be represented by someone who can’t think for himself…
- bored now - Thursday, Oct 28, 10 @ 10:44 am:
Cincinnatus: so we invaded iraq — and wasted TRILLIONS of dollars we didn’t have — because saddam hussein wasn’t “a benefit to the people of Iraq?”
this is exactly why i am no longer a republican. we *aren’t* the world’s policeman, we can’t afford to be and we can’t succeed at forcing other nations to bend to our will. iraq is now a lot closer to iran than it was, and closer to iran than it is to the united states.
and mark kirk pretends that he cares about iran. what a card!
that’s about as funny as kirk pretending that he cares about the national debt, when that one decision cost us more in silver than anything else since he’s been elected. but i always said lying to yourself is the dumbest thing any person can do…
- ChrisChicago82-Independent - Thursday, Oct 28, 10 @ 10:45 am:
“I meant, Alexi was better prepared for this debate, than the previous one.”
Couldnt agree more. Alexi was much more prepared for the character attacks then last time.
However (sadly for him), no amount of preperation could really help him during the 2nd half of the debate.
Like you, I really wish Kirk gravitated towards the issues earlier because the man is just hands down more fluent in wonkish-speak then Alexi.
I live in the 10th district too. Who are going going to vote for (or did you vote for)? Seals or Dold?
I voted for Dold, but think Seals should be able to pull it off. Afterall, this is his 3rd straight time on the ballot.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Oct 28, 10 @ 10:46 am:
–We can debate whether or not removing Saddam from power was a benefit to the people of Iraq or not. But the debate over the WMD is nothing more than a diversion from that debate.–
You brought up the “diversion” to the debate, not I.
With all due respect to the people of Iraq, our actions weren’t for them. The war was sold as being in the interests of the people of the United States because Saddam was in league with Al-Quada and had or was developing weapons of mass destruction that posed a threat to our existence. “We know where they are,” Rummy said.
That’s what sold me and many others on the war. And it was nonsense, as many of the powers that be knew at the time.
Who was the big winner? Put it this way: when top American official goes to Baghdad, they sneak them in. When Ahmadinajad, visited Baghdad, he was greeted like a hero with an open-air ceremony at the airport and rolled through the city like JFK in Dallas.
- persnickety - Thursday, Oct 28, 10 @ 11:00 am:
@bored now - and have you talked to Alexi?
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Oct 28, 10 @ 11:07 am:
As you might imagine, Iraq is a particularly sensitive topic with me, considering that my wife’s family was forced into exile a few years ago by murderous theistic thugs. So let’s tread lightly and try to move the heck on. Thanks.
- ChrisChicago82-Independent - Thursday, Oct 28, 10 @ 11:09 am:
BORED…
Obviously all of us have our preferences as to who we do or do not like as a candidate. However, it is always important to try and be as objective as one can be.
Reading through your comments, the term “blind bias,” comes to mind. It is not because you support Alexi, but because you paint Kirk as something of a political disease, failing to give him credit for even the slightest of things.
At least in the case of myself, Shore, and several others here, even if we support Kirk (more then Alexi, that is) we are very quick to always give Alexi credit when and where credit is due.
Do you have ANYTHING positive to say about Mark Kirk, or is the rage that blinding?
And please… keep the response respectful.
- Joe from Joliet - Thursday, Oct 28, 10 @ 11:10 am:
==…Kirk is becoming more unraveled.==
Jim, is that you? That sounds like something my brother would say. He is deeply devoted to his Action Alerts and dutifully regurgitates the “talking points” as instructed.
- Cincinnatus - Thursday, Oct 28, 10 @ 11:11 am:
God, Rich, I had no idea about your wife’s heritage. I would not have litigated this here had I known. Sorry.
Kirk +4%
- bored now - Thursday, Oct 28, 10 @ 11:11 am:
persnickety: i have! an observant person might have realized that i don’t make any ridiculous claims about alexi! i understand that kirk thinks very highly of himself (which isn’t a fault, every politician needs to do that in order to survive the assault by the press and intellectual snobs like me!); i’m merely pointing out that passing off kirk’s high opinion of his intelligence doesn’t make one, well, intelligent…
- ChrisChicago82-Independent - Thursday, Oct 28, 10 @ 11:12 am:
Sorry to hear about your wife’s family, Rich. I didn’t know.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Oct 28, 10 @ 11:15 am:
Christians have been essentially cleansed from that country since we invaded. It’s been a horrific and horrendously underreported mass emigration.
Anyway, let’s move along.
- bored now - Thursday, Oct 28, 10 @ 11:15 am:
ChrisChicago82-Independent: you must be new here. i’ve noted many times that mark kirk is one of the best presenters out there. he’s well known for his powerpoint presentations, and was considered the go-to guy on the republican side for presentations when he was a staffer. think tanks continue to like the way he synthesizes and conveys other people’s ideas.
i personally see this as a double-edged sword. i’m not sure that being one of the best presenters of likud’s (or donald rumsfeld’s) ideas is something we should prefer, but there’s no question that kirk has superior presentation skills…
- Amalia - Thursday, Oct 28, 10 @ 11:22 am:
Alexi went to Francis Parker? isn’t that where Edwin Eisendrath went to school? that would explain lots about both of them. snarky.
- ChrisChicago82-Independent - Thursday, Oct 28, 10 @ 11:24 am:
“no question that kirk has superior presentation skills.”
Well… that’s better then nothing.
- Hold My Nose And Vote - Thursday, Oct 28, 10 @ 11:50 am:
ChrisChicago82-Independent….I’m still holding my nose on deciding between Seals and Dold.
I attended the debate between Seals and Dold in Arlignton Heights. I was disappointed that Seals primarily just spouted the party line.
I talked with Dold afterwards. He is articulate, has some depth of understanding, but I’m leery.
Both Seals and Dold made a big issue about small business being the catalyst for job creation, but neither offered any good ideas.
I believe the small business problem, is due to lack of demand. The lack of demand is due to too many manufacturing jobs lost and too much of corporate america off-shoring jobs. These are good paying jobs, that support the local communities, pay taxes and provide demand to small businesses.
I mentioned the off-shoring of jobs to Dold. He blamed it on uncertainty of business because of health care and cap and trade. I then pushed the question and gave him some facts about my company’s employment in the US. They have reduced the US headcount by 35K in the last 5 years and increased overseas headcount by over 60K.
His response was we need a R&D credit and more free trade. I told him I was not sure about more free trade, since we lost so many jobs from it.
I did not press the issue any more. Other people were waiting to ask questions.
- bored now - Thursday, Oct 28, 10 @ 12:01 pm:
ChrisChicago82-Independent: heh, it may not have been what you expected — and it’s certainly a double-edged sword — but kirk’s got mad powerpoint skills. there’s a reason why the think tanks, nytimes and washpost go to him for presentations. i was just giving the guy his due (and i’ve done so for quite a while)…
- ChrisChicago82-Independent - Thursday, Oct 28, 10 @ 1:19 pm:
Hold My Nose And Vote-”I’m still holding my nose on deciding between Seals and Dold.”
I will be honest with you… I can see your overall point, especially in regards to small business.
Al though I think Dold is FAR more versed in this matter (small business) vs. Seals (who not only has little experience in small business, but has technically been unemployed for years as he has made running for Congress a career of some sort), what Dold suggests is a mixed bag. On one hand, he acknowledges that free trade is somewhat out of control and that we need to offer higher incentive for corporations to keep their business (and employment) here. Yet, on the other hand, he doesn’t wish to limit or curtail the very root of the problem, which is free trade itself. Whether that is good or bad is debatable.
I think what Dold purposes is the more balanced of proposals you will hear from people, but a mixed bag nonetheless that doesn’t exactly guarantee immediate relief to small local businesses, nor does it ensure that jobs will be created here (it will certainly increase the chance, but far from ensures it)
With that said, while Dold certainly beats Seals in the “credentials” department on small business, it really is a draw in regards to ideas. Seals offers none, while Dold offers a mixed bag.
On another front, I have been looking at this race in more national terms as opposed to local since I will be leaving district 10 in a few months and moving to Lake in the Hills. As I view it in broader terms, I see two men who want to be like Mark Kirk, but just aren’t. I see one man who, by the admission of 2/3 of the editorial boards he went before, will vote along party lines a good deal of the time (Dold). And I see another man who is trying to make IL-10 forget about the elections of 2008 and 2006, where he ran as a self admitted liberal, by cloaking himself off as a moderate despite a near total agreement with the Obama agenda (al though NOWHERE near as bad as Alexi).
At the end of the day, Dold seems like the less risky choice for a moderate such as myself (especially when put up against a progressive wearing mere centrist clothing), but there is a degree of uncertainty and potential partisanship IL-10 will be subjected to if they go with Dold. In addition, his own conservative economic principles have the chance to box him in to his way of thinking, but the same goes for Seals.
Overall Advise: Whomever you choose, be cautious, and know there will be some drawbacks. If you want somebody who more closely resembles Kirk, by a hair, go with Dold. If not, go with Seals. But remember… neither are Kirk.
- hisgirlfriday - Thursday, Oct 28, 10 @ 1:54 pm:
if it wasnt for how wacko the gop is nationally (and avowed in its commitment to obstructing all obama legislation here on out) then maybe i could have bought kirks moderate appeal and i wouldnt be surprised if a great many obama voters in the state do as detached from reality as kirk having the courage/desire to go against the gop is. but he definitely lost points being so petulant and condescending to alexi for not being in the military as an excuse for why it was ok for jirk to lie about it.
alexi seemed a little lightweight to me at times _ the ginny thomas question _ and i dont buy his claim of going against obama on the stimulus. but as someone who wants obama to succeed thats not really a negative.
- hisgirlfriday - Thursday, Oct 28, 10 @ 2:00 pm:
fyi … before any fight breaks out.. jirk was a completely unintentional typo. sorry abt that. guess i shouldnt post at cap fax via phone.