Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x2 - Arguments will continue tomorrow *** Mid-afternoon trial updates
Next Post: Morning Shorts
Posted in:
* Here’s something I hadn’t yet considered. A special election means the general election contributions caps are doubled…
While some contributors have already given the maximum $2,400 to either Kirk or Giannoulias for the midterm campaign, they would be able to pony up thousands more, ostensibly for the separate special election, Federal Election Commission spokeswoman Julia Queen said.
“It’s separate from just the primary and the general,” Queen confirmed.
What this means is that both candidates could go back to their maxed-out contributors and ask them to give again. It’s doubtful that there will be a special primary, but that would mean even more money could be raised.
* Mark Kirk was in Peoria on Friday and got grilled by the local media. Have a look at how he dodged a simple question: How can voters trust your word? The video is from the Giannoulias campaign. Have a look…
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Jul 26, 10 @ 2:46 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x2 - Arguments will continue tomorrow *** Mid-afternoon trial updates
Next Post: Morning Shorts
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Mark and Alexi are both nightmares. Kirk does have a record as a federal lawmaker, and it ain’t that bad. Not sure what Alexi’s work record or ethic is.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Jul 26, 10 @ 2:56 pm
The title of the video is misleading. Kirk does answer about the “latest lie.” What he doesn’t do is answer the question, “Why should the voters believe you?” That is a better question than talking about arcane details of a 35 year old event, and should be the theme of an Alexi ad. Kirk better get a response to this to, and should himself create an ad about this issue.
Comment by Cincinnatus Monday, Jul 26, 10 @ 2:56 pm
I know I can’t trust Alexi and I think he’d just be a yes man in DC. Not thrilled about Kirk but he ain’t Alexi.
Comment by Belle Monday, Jul 26, 10 @ 3:19 pm
Mark Kirk very simply has a pattern of lying about his personal record, his biggest problem is he has lied repeatedly on video. As a rebulican cannot vote for him because I am not sure if he will support my republican values!
Comment by Change is on the way Monday, Jul 26, 10 @ 3:21 pm
Listen to those questions!
“given your tendencies to embellish…”
“A lot of our people don’t have access to the facts, figures, everything…tell us why you should be trusted.”
Until I announced my candidacy, no one questioned my trustworthiness. Not after a decade in Congress. Certainly not among those who trusted me with their lives during my long military career. This will be a long hard campaign. I expect to have my political opponent continue to spin controversies out of thin air.
Comment by VanillaMan Monday, Jul 26, 10 @ 3:22 pm
Rich: I agree with “Change 3:21″ I don’t think I can vote for either of these two candidates based upon what I’ve heard in this campaign. (and a write in candidate doesn’t have a prayer)
Comment by One of the 35 Monday, Jul 26, 10 @ 3:24 pm
*Until I announced my candidacy, no one questioned my trustworthiness.*
But the people that have since the announcement include his higher ups in the military. Try again.
Comment by Montrose Monday, Jul 26, 10 @ 3:25 pm
Actually VM, it is “given THE ALLEGATIONS of your tendencies to embellish.”
Sort of ironic that VMan would embellish the question in order to make the questioner look biased.
Yes, there are allegations that Kirk has a tendency to embellish. It is clear to just about everyone that the allegation that he tends to embellish is true.
Comment by Skeeter Monday, Jul 26, 10 @ 3:28 pm
Sigh. This race really is a joke on both sides.
Comment by willie mays hayes Monday, Jul 26, 10 @ 3:29 pm
the state’s falling off a cliff and the only thing the media wants to talk about is a boating accident before ALEXI WAS BORN.
and they wonder why so many of them are losing their jobs.
Comment by shore Monday, Jul 26, 10 @ 3:34 pm
Shore, I agree with you. The media should be reporting how the Mark Kirk was one of the republicans whose policies ran this country into the ground during the 2000s and got us into an unnecessary war.
Comment by Objective Dem Monday, Jul 26, 10 @ 3:41 pm
Audio is rough, but the first thing he does is point to his track record as a Rep, and then he says he would continue laying and following such plans as a Senator. Whether that is believable or not is up to the viewer, I guess, but it IS an answer. I also agree with Vanillaman: those questions were ridiculously leading.
Btw, this whole attack on his sailing accident memories is over the edge nonsense. It reminds me of Obama derangement syndrome (or Palin derangement syndrome, take your pick). I think Alexi fans just realize they only have a prayer if they shred Kirk, no matter the substance. Take a fine-tooth comb to anyone’s memories of being 16, especially of traumatic incidents that required medical aid; you find all kinds of mistakes and errors of memory.
Everyone vividly remembers childhood details that may not be true to events. I see a whole lot of hypocrisy out there.
I realize Rich would probably say something about how this treatment should be expected given Kirk’s self-inflicted wounds, but I say that is nonsense. The press shouldn’t get a pass for this garbage, especially when they are so clearly ignoring real issues. I don’t care about this nonsense, and I’m sick of reporters passing up the opportunity to press on real issues.
Comment by Liandro Monday, Jul 26, 10 @ 3:44 pm
@objective Dem:
Hey, at least that would be a discussion of actual policy issues–quite a leap from where we’re at. If we could discuss that, AND Alexi was firmly pressed on his stances on each of those issues, I might get some actual info I need on the candidates. Especially since both have records to compare their words to (well, Alexi sort of does…not exactly sure what he’s accomplished…but I blame the press for that lack of knowledge, too).
Comment by Liandro Monday, Jul 26, 10 @ 3:47 pm
Kirk’s record in Congress actually is pretty bad, Anon 2:56. He claimed to be pro-choice and pro-environment but has flip flopped on both (and lost those endorsements to Giannoulias as a result). He supported intervening in the Terry Schiavo case, he voted against equal pay for women in the Lily Ledbetter case, and he has been one of the least accomplished House members in terms of getting bills passed. Giannoulias’ stands have been consistent (e.g., favoring equal rights for all citizens, tax relief for working families over corporations) and he has a strong record as state treasurer.
Comment by kirk constituent Monday, Jul 26, 10 @ 3:49 pm
Oh, and Objective Dem: We could follow-up that discussion with how Alexi ran alongside the Dem policies that ran IL into the ground. Between those two discussions, maybe a meaningful debate will pop up, no? Say, perhaps, a serious look at what policies will best lead us forward? Ah, I know, I’m reaching…back to the accusations and innuendo…
Comment by Liandro Monday, Jul 26, 10 @ 3:50 pm
Interesting that Kirk’s first answer stated that he was proud of a lot of government spending: $200 million expansion for a hospital, $800 billion for a harbor, etc.
Then he calls himself a fiscal conservative.
Also have to love his argument on the boat incident which can be “My mother and my best friend say I am not a liar.” I sure hope so. Otherwise, he needs to find a new best friend.
Comment by Skeeter Monday, Jul 26, 10 @ 3:58 pm
Liandro, I must admit to being a bit snide in my comment, but the reality is I do wish to see some real in-depth analysis by the media that hold people and parties accountable. That includes Alexi.
Comment by Objective Dem Monday, Jul 26, 10 @ 4:02 pm
Liandro,
Why BOTHER talking about the issues?
Cong. Kirk has shown that when he talks, he often is not telling the truth.
For intance, Liandro, let’s here Kirk talk about cap and trade. What is his position today, Liandro? What will be his position tomorrow?
The fact that Kirk has this tendency to say things that are not true is a major issue for him, and the GOP can scream IT DOESN’T MATTER all day, but it will still not change the fact that, at the end of the day, when Mark Kirk tells you something — whether about his background or about policy — people must doubt that he is telling the truth.
Comment by Skeeter Monday, Jul 26, 10 @ 4:05 pm
Well, shore, Kirk put out a press release (I saw it on Sweet’s site) with his nine step plan to ’save’ Peoria. Might look like good reading to you I suppose, but it was nothing more than highlighted talking points to appear informed and acknowledgable about an area he has no personal insight in. Nothing more than an attempt to get votes if one buys into superficial targeted fluff.
I will say that Dennis’ quick blog on being human and our heat/humidity that day was a hoot.
Comment by Cindy Lou Monday, Jul 26, 10 @ 4:05 pm
Kirk may like to talk about himself a little bit too much, but at least he’s his own person, not an Obama impersonator.
Comment by Anon Monday, Jul 26, 10 @ 4:08 pm
–Certainly not among those who trusted me with their lives during my long military career.–
Now you’re embellishing. Lot of lives at stake during Kirk’s “long military career?” Where and when? Doing what?
The guy’s had a reserve job, certainly noble, but he ain’t all that.
If you’re sweet on this guy, you might want to lay off his military record. There are plenty of kids who are giving the full measure of devotion every week in Asia. And there are a lot more to come.
Don’t compare Kirk’s service to theirs. That’s what got him in trouble in the first place.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Jul 26, 10 @ 4:19 pm
I haven’t heard Kirk speak other than soundbites on TV until I saw this clip. Frankly he made my skin crawl. He epitomizes the worst type of two talking politician. I was amazed at his defense of the boat accident story. Rather than just saying “I was telling a story with the goal of being interesting not testifying in court;” he starts going after the reporter for not using his Mommy’s version of the story. I have a gut feeling that an interview with his mom would give some real insights into Kirk.
Comment by Objective Dem Monday, Jul 26, 10 @ 4:24 pm
@skeeter:
Okay, let’s talk cap-and-trade. Kirk promised to vote for it, and he did. Makes sense, even if it ticked me off. He said he did it to represents his district, which went for Obama by over 60%. Okay, that makes sense, too, although I can see why you would argue it is opportunistic or something. Now, he says as Senator-representing the whole state-he would vote against it. Southern IL would get hurt by that bill, as would countless businesses like mine (depending on how the final language dealt with electric bills, etc). Further, it is a bad time to pass expensive legislation, so all-around I can see why he would take that position. Again, though, I can see where you might argue he is being opportunistic, and I would at least partially agree with you.
Now, compare this to Alexi, who I KNOW is going to be voting with Reid and the Dem’s on any major issue. I also know he has little to no experience or leadership in areas that he could use to push bills (banking maybe? finance? that’s a laugh…). So…Kirk is squishy/moderate on issues, and Alexi is firmly party-line with nothing else to offer. I take the moderate.
For what it is worth, I DON’T trust Kirk, but I KNOW what Alexi is, and I know he is not competent. I don’t trust Scott Brown, either, but I would sure take him over Alexi (or Durbin, for that matter). I may be first in line to help primary him (or cross party lines?) in six years to help out a better candidate, but Alexi is just plain not qualified on any level.
Comment by Liandro Monday, Jul 26, 10 @ 4:28 pm
@Skeeter:
On this one I’m completely with you. Kirk is NOT a fiscal conservative; he is a fiscal moderate. That still puts him well to the right of someone like Pelosi or Obama, but I agree with your point.
Comment by Liandro Monday, Jul 26, 10 @ 4:31 pm
Liandro,
Let me get this right:
You are saying “Sure Kirk flips, but it doesn’t matter.” Let’s not talk about honesty, because it doesn’t matter? Is that really your argument?
Also, could you point out the things that are unique to his district that make cap and trade a good idea there, but bad for the rest of the state? Because, so far, other than “voters here like it” I haven’t heard much to back that distinction.
You claim he’s against it because it is expensive? Listen to his answer. He BRAGS about all the pork.
And you want him to talk about the issues. He did mention issues in that tape. He said:
1. Here is a list of the pork I brought home; and
2. I am a fiscal conservative.
To me, that does not seem consistent, which may be the reason people shouldn’t bother talking to Kirk about any issues.
Comment by Skeeter Monday, Jul 26, 10 @ 4:52 pm
He definitely ducked the question– but how would ANYONE answer a question like that? It’s such a vague, broad, unanswerable question. You earn trust. You don’t sell people on it.
Comment by Dark Horse Monday, Jul 26, 10 @ 5:23 pm
@skeeter:
I’m not saying Kirk’s flip doesn’t matter, I’m saying there is a valid argument in voting for your constituency. Kirk is a moderate, arguably the finger-in-the-wind kind, and should be presented as such. I was contrasting that to Alexi, who would pretty much just be a Dem party hack/vote. Whatever my knocks on Kirk, he would not be a R hack. Kirk flipped, but that doesn’t automatically translate to dishonest, especially since he is RUNNING on his position before he votes it. It would only be dishonest, Skeeter, if he ran on an issue then voted differently. Kirk ran as a aye vote, and then he voted aye. Now he is giving forewarning that, in the Senate, he is a nay vote. That may or may not be principled, but it is NOT dishonest to give advance warning, no matter how you may want to spin it.
As for things specific to the Kirk’s 10th CD: the obvious answer is that they wouldn’t bear the bulk of the pain a cap-and-tax bill would give. They don’t have energy development, or mining, or or natural resources in nearly enough quantity to be as affected as, say, S. IL or KY, etc. That seems fairly obvious. Their voter lean on this issue represents that, and Kirk was representing that. Like I said, finger-in-the-wind.
As for his whole fiscal conservative thing, yeah…now THAT would be a new development as well.
Comment by Liandro Monday, Jul 26, 10 @ 5:47 pm
Over and over he stresses that his mother was there at the hospital.
It’s like McCain who beat to death the fact he was a Viet Nam Vet. This guy is beating his service to death as well. The reporter is right, get back to the issues we don’t need to go to your web site. By the way John Kerry always answered go to my web site, and where did that get him?
Comment by South of the Loop Monday, Jul 26, 10 @ 7:07 pm
=How can voters trust your word?=
Here’s my take.
Trust is defined as a “confident belief; faith”. That’s why some others have said–and will continue to say–that trust is earned, developed, and most importantly *FELT*. Therefore, it’s not an easy thing to “explain”–especially during a press conference within the context of politics.
There are generally TWO approaches one can take to answer a question grounded in “emotion”: You can either answer it with facts related thereto, or you can provide a more “emotional” response.
Kirk obviously took a more fact-based approach. His first response cited FACTS that would allow someone to “measure” his performance in Congress. Whether you agree with the project (or not), or whether you believe they were “pork” projects (or not), he clearly stated that he set goals and objectives based on what he believed his Constituents wanted (representation)–and he MET most of them while in office.
It’s a “performance-based” measure and response, which he probably believes is the way Constituents (current and future) will or should judge him. His second response, referring to his fitness reports, was FACT-based and performance-based, as well. Again, probably what he believes Constituents will/should use to judge him.
Think of it this way: You’re in an office environment and your performance is being evaluated. Are you going to respond with facts re: same, or are you going to get “all emotional”? And, to take that a step further: how many of us have actually been in appraisals where a manager–while quite aware of your contribution and accomplishments–has tried to “push” your buttons just to get an emotional reaction out of you for one reason or another.
Just offering that up for consideration. Could something similar be at play in all of this “stuff” that’s been taking place over the last week or so?
While I’m not trying to explain some of the “discrepancies” cited in the press, I AM now wondering whether some folks would be “more satisfied” if Kirk were to lose his cool and snip, or get teary-eyed, etc. in response to some of the stuff that’s now being tossed at him?
ESPECIALLY the more “personal” stuff involving (come on, guys!) a 16-year old who nearly died THIRTY-FOUR YEARS ago–and the “testimony” of those near him, including his Mom?
And if so, sure–it all will go up a notch or two on the “drAma” scale, but what would it actually add beyond that, or even prove?
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Jul 26, 10 @ 7:26 pm
Sorry. The last one was mine.
Comment by The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous Monday, Jul 26, 10 @ 7:26 pm
And I’ll add one more thing for consideration. I still believe that many of the “lies” Kirk’s been “caught in” could have easily been re-categorized as “stories” or “scenarios” he used during debates IF he had appropriately set the CONTEXT to let the audience know they were “stories” BASED on fact.
Maybe his inability or negligence to do so at the time had more to do with his assumption that he’d be judged on his PERFORMANCE as an elected official–and not necessarily the “stories” he told to meet certain objectives.
Again, not condoning his “behavior”, but if he IS actually willing to be judged–as an elected official–based on his PERFORMANCE as an elected official, that might be kind of “refreshing”, wouldn’t you say?
Comment by The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous Monday, Jul 26, 10 @ 7:36 pm
Full disclosure: I never really believed the saying that “government should not be run as a business”. While it’s not a “business”, I’ve always believed that applying some business methodologies to government would be a useful thing–and might have helped to avoid where we all right now.
Just sayin.
Comment by The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous Monday, Jul 26, 10 @ 7:47 pm
Dark Horse, I wouldn’t express it exactly like you, but we are on the same page. Kirk relying on his congressional record of abiding by his word is the only way to respond to the clearly loaded, aggressive, rhetorical questions.
Comment by Conservative Republican Monday, Jul 26, 10 @ 8:22 pm
–It’s like McCain who beat to death the fact he was a Viet Nam Vet.–
You can’t really be comparing Kirk’s military service experience to McCain’s. Why don’t you throw in Max Cleland, or, Bush I, or, dare I say it, John Kerry’s?
It’s not even in the same ballpark. That’s the whole problem with Kirk’s nonsense. He had an honorable record that he kept trying to make into something more heroic for personal gain. It dishonors those who really have been in harm’s way.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Jul 26, 10 @ 9:02 pm
Real Anonymous,
I agree with you that Kirk would have been best served by simply saying he was simplifying the facts to tell the story in an interesting manner. We all know story-tellers and actually like hanging out with them. If both the teller and the audience know they are entertaining rather than lying, no one minds at all.
Kirk’s problem is he comes off as a resume inflater who either won’t fess up or tries to blame his “exaggerations” on other people picking on him. We all know this type of person and find them real snakey and best avoided because they are all about themselves.
I don’t doubt for a moment that Alexi is equally self-centered and capable of spinning any story to his benefit. But he does it within certain limits. He comes off as a “spinner” rather than a liar.
Comment by Objective Dem Monday, Jul 26, 10 @ 9:15 pm
Kirk is a Counterfeiter
Comment by x ace Monday, Jul 26, 10 @ 9:31 pm
=It dishonors those who really have been in harm’s way.=
I’m certainly NOT going to argue that one, word.
However, I think that IF Kirk HAD set the appropriate context for some of the things he had said based on his true EXPERIENCES, he COULD have successfully used the “stories” or “scenarios” to support arguments that could have been used more effectively to help those serving and making sacrifices each and every day.
E.g., his experiences in the military–while not as touted–could be used to raise an “awareness” for CIVILIANS, especially, of what those in our Military might go through, feel, are exposed to, etc.
In some instances, if he’d only said something like “Based on my actual experiences *here* *doing this*, I could *imagine* what it must be like when *this* happens–and therefore….” it COULD make a more effective argument than if it came from someone who was never even close to such a situation.
Again, not first-hand when compared to someone who’s served “in the line of fire” on a daily basis, but still…closer and therefore probably much more aware than someone who has NEVER served.
Context. He keeps screwing up “context”, and I’m not sure that it’s to make himself look better necessarily. Same could be applied to the “teaching” scenario.
Comment by The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous Monday, Jul 26, 10 @ 9:40 pm
=Kirk’s problem is he comes off as a resume inflater who either won’t fess up or tries to blame his “exaggerations” on other people picking on him.=
I understand. However, I’m also considering that while he’s taken full responsibility and accountability for everything on his “resume”, after almost ten years in public office, there IS a possibility that some of it could be attributed to “translation” probs, over zealous consultants and/or staff, etc.
Even Giannoulias’ campaign has run across a discrepancy or two between “documentation”. And I’ll add, too, that this is the FIRST election I’ve lived through where “supporters” actually refer to themselves as “FANS”.
Looks like Hollywood is alive and well in Illinois.
Again, not defending him, but you have to admit that this election is a little unusual re: both campaigns–even by Illinois standards.
Comment by The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous Monday, Jul 26, 10 @ 9:54 pm
=Kirk is a Counterfeiter=
See what I mean? “Mobsters”, “counterfeiters”…it’s like the conceptual phase of a really, really bad made-for-TV movie.
Comment by The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous Monday, Jul 26, 10 @ 9:57 pm
Again, I’ll take anyone willing to try a “business” approach to politics and government anyday over fledgling gossip columnists, script writers, and marketing folks who develop jingles, ads, etc. for “cleaning” products.
Comment by The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous Monday, Jul 26, 10 @ 10:00 pm
Real AKA Anon (whatever), if my aunt had Testicular virility, she’d be my uncle.
I don’t know what you’re trying to say there. Kirk made some stuff up to make himself look better. Case closed. It was vulgar because real people are actually facing those life and death situations he made up for himself. Those who don’t make it are in the paper every day.
I won’t get past it. But I won’t vote for Alexi, either, because I can’t think of a reason why I should. Sometime before November I’ll check out the Greenie.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Jul 26, 10 @ 10:15 pm
=I won’t get past it.=
Yeah, well, he still has time left. As I said before: “Trust is defined as a ‘confident belief; faith’.”
He’s either going to succeed or fail at establishing, or re-establishing “trust” where it’s required to win and be effective in office if he gets there. We’ll see.
Comment by The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous Monday, Jul 26, 10 @ 10:20 pm
Blago is the most honest politician in IL
Comment by anon Monday, Jul 26, 10 @ 10:40 pm
Kirk’s record in Congress also includes claiming special insight into intelligence issues based on his status as the IO of the Year, claiming he was shot at in Iraqi airspace, claiming he understood what American teachers faced as a fellow member of the “profession” and claiming the evidence of WMDs was absolutely certain. It includes (according to him) undercutting our foreign policy to representatives of the Chinese regime. It includes piling to other legislators’ push to prevent ecological damage to Lake Michigan, not doing any of the heavy lifting and then taking credit for the resulting success. It includes supporting a wide swath of policies that he now asserts he never really cared for put had to go along with to appease hie constituents. So basically his record screams out that he doesn’t mean anything he says, ever. If the lies about his personal life are what people hook on to, so be it, but they are of a piece with his overall conduct.
For those who keep minimizing this, I will concede context matters to whether we expect absolute truth or tolerate some embellishment. But that doesn’t help Kirk. He doesn’t just lie in the context of relating personal stories to close friends who get the context (telling “fish stories”), but on the floor of Congress when speaking on the official record, in hearings and in front of potential voters. The first two are contexts where we can and should demand absolute truth from our legislators in presenting arguments (and too often over the last decade we have let people get away with emotionally or intuitively satisfying lies instead of facts) and the third is where people are making judgments on how people will execute their conduct in the first two.
Comment by Berkeley Bear Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 9:26 am