* The Sun-Times has a new twist in the now infamous employment case brought against Tammy Duckworth by Christina Butler and Denise Goins…
Even greater problems were alleged in the civil-service case involving former Anna home administrator Patricia Simms (who also is a defendant in Butler and Goins’ ongoing lawsuit).
Although Duckworth signed employee reviews for Simms judging her work as “acceptable,” Simms was fired after Duckworth’s departure for a federal post in 2009.
In Simms’ civil-service case challenging her firing in 2010, officials said Simms was canned for failing to “properly maintain the list of veterans who are seeking admission to the veterans’ home in Anna.”
The attorney general’s office described several cases in which veterans sought to move into the Anna home but never appeared on any waiting list or were erroneously kept waiting too long. The problems prevented them from being admitted before they died.
Simms eventually resigned, promising to never again seek work with the department.
The alleged wait-list problems occurred while Duckworth headed the department.
Several dead people. Yeah, I expect that’ll be in a TV ad pretty soon.
The two women expected more money from the settlement
*** UPDATE *** Looks like they had an ad in the can while they waited for the story to be published. That’s standard procedure. This just went up today…
Considering the terrible revelation about the number of veterans whose calls to the VA suicide hotline went unanswered, the news about veterans waiting to get into the Anna home is a double whammy.
I remain fascinated by the Kirk strategy of calling Duckworth a “war hero” who, yet, somehow was a sinister force in veterans’ care.
The war hero who was blown out of the sky, lost her legs and was put back together in a VA hospital, was somehow indifferent to the plight of veterans seeking medical care.
You can sell that? To whom, that is persuadable?
Here comes the next round of spots with male combat veterans pounding the stuff out of Kirk’s service embellishments and saying Duckworth “fought like hell for us.”
Does Kirk think that he is running for commander of his local American Legion post? He’d lose that race, by the way.
For a Senate run in Illinois, he has a great spot geared toward suburban women, who he desperately needs (reminder to the Kirk campaign: you are running against a suburban mother). He has another geared toward Hispanics.
Why is he wasting his limited resources on this impossible strategy?
While the Kirk camp is right that being a war hero doesn’t prevent you from being a bad public official (see Grant, U.S.), and Duckworth hasn’t exactly been great in her various roles, I think it is a hard sell to get the average voter to separate the two.
I don’t think that either side of this military coin–Tammy as the brave helicopter pilot who lost her legs in combat —or Tammy as the inept, politically appointed administrator of veterans services– is the road to winning the votes of still undecided suburban women. Yet both campaigns inexplicably keep harping.
Mark Kirk has spent virtually his entire adult life working on capitol hill and his only hope for reelection is smearing a war hero who lost her legs in combat as anti-veteran. Think about how pathetic that is.
- FAIRNESS AND FAIRNESS ONLY - Wednesday, Sep 28, 16 @ 12:08 pm:
I am a suburban mom. If the choice were solely based on the attack ads regarding military support then, hands down, “war hero” wins. Kirk is wasting time and money with this battle.
I don’t think the premise of this attack is that she actively sought to make the VA a mess. I think the premise is rather her ineptitude exacerbated the mess. If you accept that premise and also believe that government is a mess, then why would you think she could be a good senator?
Of course that argument is dinged every time Kirk opens his mouth to prove that he too is inept.
Being a war hero does not necessarily translate into being a good agency administrator or a good elected official. Duckworth is not entitled to become a US Senator solely on the basis of her military service or her Purple Heart Medal. She needs to make a case as to why her election would help the people of the State of Illinois.
Disagree with Anonymous. In a Presidential election year in the blue state of Illinois, the Democratic nominee doesn’t have to make a case to win. Unless Kirk can (1) provide voters a meaningful rationale for his reelection, or (2) somehow make Duckworth unelectable, he loses.
On the first point, Kirk has provided nothing to convince voters he deserves to stay in DC. Every time he opens his mouth he digs himself a deeper hole. On the second point, Kirk’s arguing that a war hero is anti-veteran. It simply doesn’t resonate.
Responsa, you may not like it but it’s pretty clearly the case. A generic democrat will beat a generic republican in this election. It’s really not that complicated.
This won’t be a popular post, but why is the state involved with veteran care at all? The Feds make all the “go to war” calls so why not leave veteran issues up to them?
- peets - Wednesday, Sep 28, 16 @ 10:42 am:
that agency was a disaster and duckworth is going to have to defend it now.
- Team Sleep - Wednesday, Sep 28, 16 @ 10:42 am:
Considering the terrible revelation about the number of veterans whose calls to the VA suicide hotline went unanswered, the news about veterans waiting to get into the Anna home is a double whammy.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Sep 28, 16 @ 10:53 am:
–Several dead people. Yeah, I expect that’ll be in a TV ad pretty soon.–
Up on You Tube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRc38JqFjZ0
I remain fascinated by the Kirk strategy of calling Duckworth a “war hero” who, yet, somehow was a sinister force in veterans’ care.
The war hero who was blown out of the sky, lost her legs and was put back together in a VA hospital, was somehow indifferent to the plight of veterans seeking medical care.
You can sell that? To whom, that is persuadable?
Here comes the next round of spots with male combat veterans pounding the stuff out of Kirk’s service embellishments and saying Duckworth “fought like hell for us.”
Does Kirk think that he is running for commander of his local American Legion post? He’d lose that race, by the way.
For a Senate run in Illinois, he has a great spot geared toward suburban women, who he desperately needs (reminder to the Kirk campaign: you are running against a suburban mother). He has another geared toward Hispanics.
Why is he wasting his limited resources on this impossible strategy?
- walker - Wednesday, Sep 28, 16 @ 11:02 am:
Just don’t see Kirk winning with any sort of veteran card against Duckworth.
His play was experience and knowledge, especially regarding national security. Perhaps that is not emotional enough to stick.
- Ron Burgundy - Wednesday, Sep 28, 16 @ 11:15 am:
While the Kirk camp is right that being a war hero doesn’t prevent you from being a bad public official (see Grant, U.S.), and Duckworth hasn’t exactly been great in her various roles, I think it is a hard sell to get the average voter to separate the two.
- Responsa - Wednesday, Sep 28, 16 @ 11:36 am:
I don’t think that either side of this military coin–Tammy as the brave helicopter pilot who lost her legs in combat —or Tammy as the inept, politically appointed administrator of veterans services– is the road to winning the votes of still undecided suburban women. Yet both campaigns inexplicably keep harping.
- slow down - Wednesday, Sep 28, 16 @ 11:57 am:
Mark Kirk has spent virtually his entire adult life working on capitol hill and his only hope for reelection is smearing a war hero who lost her legs in combat as anti-veteran. Think about how pathetic that is.
- FAIRNESS AND FAIRNESS ONLY - Wednesday, Sep 28, 16 @ 12:08 pm:
I am a suburban mom. If the choice were solely based on the attack ads regarding military support then, hands down, “war hero” wins. Kirk is wasting time and money with this battle.
- Chicago_Downstater - Wednesday, Sep 28, 16 @ 12:37 pm:
I don’t know if this is a waste of time.
I don’t think the premise of this attack is that she actively sought to make the VA a mess. I think the premise is rather her ineptitude exacerbated the mess. If you accept that premise and also believe that government is a mess, then why would you think she could be a good senator?
Of course that argument is dinged every time Kirk opens his mouth to prove that he too is inept.
I loathe this race.
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Sep 28, 16 @ 12:44 pm:
Being a war hero does not necessarily translate into being a good agency administrator or a good elected official. Duckworth is not entitled to become a US Senator solely on the basis of her military service or her Purple Heart Medal. She needs to make a case as to why her election would help the people of the State of Illinois.
- A guy - Wednesday, Sep 28, 16 @ 1:21 pm:
That ad will leave a mark.
And it all coulda gone away but for a big mouth Campaign spokesman. A heavy price.
- slow down - Wednesday, Sep 28, 16 @ 1:26 pm:
Disagree with Anonymous. In a Presidential election year in the blue state of Illinois, the Democratic nominee doesn’t have to make a case to win. Unless Kirk can (1) provide voters a meaningful rationale for his reelection, or (2) somehow make Duckworth unelectable, he loses.
On the first point, Kirk has provided nothing to convince voters he deserves to stay in DC. Every time he opens his mouth he digs himself a deeper hole. On the second point, Kirk’s arguing that a war hero is anti-veteran. It simply doesn’t resonate.
- Responsa - Wednesday, Sep 28, 16 @ 1:57 pm:
==In a Presidential election year in the blue state of Illinois, the Democratic nominee doesn’t have to make a case to win. ==
OKayyyy. Good to know.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Sep 28, 16 @ 2:12 pm:
–And it all coulda gone away but for a big mouth Campaign spokesman. A heavy price.–
How do you figure?
Is this not a legitimate issue for Kirk to raise in its own right?
Is it dependent on plaintiffs’ getting honked off about the characterization of the settlement their lawyers said they agreed to?
- slow down - Wednesday, Sep 28, 16 @ 3:10 pm:
Responsa, you may not like it but it’s pretty clearly the case. A generic democrat will beat a generic republican in this election. It’s really not that complicated.
- Responsa - Wednesday, Sep 28, 16 @ 3:18 pm:
== It’s really not that complicated.==
If you don’t recognize that politics is almost always complicated the joke’s on you. Are you by any chance new-ish to this site?
- FirstTimer - Wednesday, Sep 28, 16 @ 5:42 pm:
I know at least one of these accused “whistle blowers” is still working there. Just sayin’
- striketoo - Wednesday, Sep 28, 16 @ 7:45 pm:
This won’t be a popular post, but why is the state involved with veteran care at all? The Feds make all the “go to war” calls so why not leave veteran issues up to them?