72 Comments - Joe in the Know - Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 9:57 am: “Proft dubbed ’serious’ gubernatorial candidate”? You mean “seriously delusional”, right? Consider the source….. - shore - Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 10:08 am: To me a springfield insider like dillard is the LAST thing the party needs right now. That ad for obama was an unforgivable sin. I am a big fan of murphy. If Lisa Madigan goes for senate and the dance card fills up for governor then it sounds like my dear leader Mark kirk maybe going back to the house? - Leroy - Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 10:21 am: “If you’re a Republican and afraid of anything in 2010, you shouldn’t be running” Read: An $11 billion deficit is nothing to fear. - SangamoGOP - Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 10:23 am: Matt Murphy - “If you’re not afraid to lose, you’re a whole lot better candidate.” Coming from another State Senator who is mid-term and really has nothing to lose… - Carl Nyberg - Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 10:26 am: Is it possible that Team Obama asked Lisa Madigan to delay announcing her decision to keep Kirk on his heals? Kirk–for whatever reason–seems unwilling to face Lisa Madigan. By delaying Lisa Madigan’s announcement, Kirk continues to dither and not prepare to run for either U.S. Senate or governor. Team Obama and Lisa Madigan have largely checkmated Kirk by doing nothing and taking advantage of his risk adverse nature. BTW, while I think Kirk is a media creation who lacks principles, courage and knowledge of policy, I do think he’s the one electable candidate the GOP has for the 2010 election cycle. And if Team Obama and Team Madigan keep him for running for either U.S. Senate or governor its a shrewd move for the Democratic Party in Illinois. - Conservative Veteran - Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 11:03 am: On June 13, I attended a meeting of the Republican Organization of Wheeling Township, and Rep. Kirk was the guest speaker. Someone asked whether he’ll run for the U.S. Senate. Kirk said that he hasn’t decided. He said, “The White House chose someone they think is the perfect candidate for the U.S. Senate or governor. That person can’t run for both offices. A few days after that person makes an announcement, I’ll announce the race in which I’ll run.” I think that Kirk was referring to Attorney General Madigan. He knows that she’ll run for the U.S. Senate or governor, and he’ll probably run for the race for which she doesn’t run. Since I’m a Republican who lives in Kirk’s district, I hope that a Republican is planning on running, in his congressional district. I read that State Rep. Beth Coulson might run. - therealdeal - Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 11:03 am: According to reports, DAvid Axelrod and Rahm Emanual were missing from the attendees at the Madigan Obama meeting — so we are to take this “political” meeting seriously? Madigan raised 4 million locally and how much federally? Is this senate/governor thing really distractions, ruses, misdirection, and public relations? - Louis G. Atsaves - Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 11:06 am: By the over the top reactions of many Democrat blog sites and regular Democratic supporters, Kirk is the most serious and viable candidate for Governor for the GOP. The “who lacks principles, courage and knowledge of policy” has been parroted against him by the 10th Congressional Democrats for the last four elections, and has been rejected by the voters. And who is dithering here, Lisa Madigan, Mark Kirk or BOTH of them? - phocion - Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 11:06 am: “BTW, while I think Kirk is a media creation who lacks principles, courage and knowledge of policy, I do think he’s the one electable candidate the GOP has for the 2010 election cycle.” First of all, Nyberg, Congressman Kirk recently faced real live bullets while serving his nation in Iraq. So, I don’t think he has to defend his virtues of courage to you or anyone. Secondly, he is a principled moderate Republican - not a rabid right-winger that you would love to prop up in order to knock down. Thirdly, as Kirk was a long-time congressional aide and with 8 years in Congress, I would place his knowledge of public policy up against most. Nyberg, we know the Daily Kos rabble is still licking their wounds from Kirk’s second win over Seals. But to suggest that Obama would call Lisa Madigan in a meeting in order to keep Kirk cooling his heels is just plain tin foil hat material. Whether Kirk runs or not, no one can question his integrity and public service. I’m a Democrat who would gladly vote for him - although it does depend on who his opponent is. - Rich Miller - Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 11:08 am: ===According to reports, DAvid Axelrod and Rahm Emanual were missing from the attendees at the Madigan Obama meeting — so we are to take this “political” meeting seriously?=== I don’t know what you’ve been reading, but Axelrod and Emanuel were both in that meeting. - Bill - Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 11:10 am: Memo to Republicans: Choose Murphy in the primary. PLEASE! - Ghost - Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 11:10 am: === Kirk–for whatever reason–seems unwilling to face Lisa Madigan.==== Because he wants to win. Why pick the toughest fight in the State when you have a pick of good positions? Go for the easiest race. - shore - Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 11:15 am: The kirk beatdowns on this blog coming from people who support the mess here in Illinois are an absolute joke. Kirk’s spent nearly 4 decades working in washington on complex foreign policy issues, has degrees from 3 elite universities, and like King Louis Astaves said, is the only sitting member of congress to have been shot at in Iraq. That’s a lot better resume than a state treasurer whose sole claim to fame is a junket to greece, and mediocre basketball career, and some hoops with obama. You want to watch incompetence watch todd stroger on chicago tonight, julie hamos on the berkowitz show call for a tax hike because her state government couldn’t balance a state’s budget or my favorite recent democrat fail of late, debbie halvorson’s awful city club performance on cantv. That thing was horrendous. Thanks. - Rich Miller - Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 11:21 am: ===Madigan raised 4 million locally and how much federally?=== Zero. But most candidates refund money to state contributors then ask the contributors to send a capped amount to their federal committees. It’s a fairly common practice and usually results in lots of cash. - Rob_N - Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 11:22 am: Your comment rings a bell… You (posting as Con Vet) posted the same comment last week at this blog. While Googling the comment to see if my memory served me correctly, I noticed the same comment was copied and pasted to Free Republic, Illinois Review and other conservative sites using a different (eponymous) username familiar to many. What gives? Are you trying to promote Mark Kirk, Lisa Madigan, Beth Coulson… Ruth O’Connell’s organization in Wheeling Township? I’m curious as to why you (and perhaps a second person, or you using a different username) keep repeating that same benign comment. - Rob_N - Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 11:24 am: Oops. That last comment was directed at Conservative Veteran’s 11:03 comment which matches a comment he made last week and a comment left at other blogs as well. - Cheswick - Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 11:27 am: I couldn’t help but notice when Sen. Murphy listed the “most important things we’re going to be talking about for the next year and a half,” he left out the budget and thereof balancing thereof. Does he think that issue will take care of itself, or he does he not want to touch it? I don’t know. - bored now - Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 11:28 am: “Kirk recently faced real live bullets while serving his nation in Iraq. So, I don’t think he has to defend his virtues of courage to you or anyone.” while it’s cute to glorify a politician, you might try getting your facts straight. mark kirk did *not* face “real live bullets while serving his nation in Iraq.” wanna try again? and if you’re going to get all sanctimonious on critics, you might try taking on someone who hasn’t really served his country in the armed forces. as for kirk, one of my 10th Mountain friends said: “Prince Harry saw more action than Congressman Kirk did.” - Rob_N - Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 11:28 am: Shore, Mark Kirk is only 49 years old. If he’s “spent nearly 4 decades working in washington on complex foreign policy issues” that would mean he started when he was 9. - JonShibleyFan - Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 11:30 am: Matt Murphy, eh? Well, I guess if the GOP primary has room for an acerbic self-styled consultant who’s been “serving” the people of Cicero and a dude whose mother has barely ever heard of him, there’s room for a two-year state senator whose key accomplishment is…um…whose primary accomplishment is…uhhh….well, a two-year state senator, anyway. - Carl Nyberg - Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 11:31 am: ===Kirk’s spent nearly 4 decades working in washington on complex foreign policy issues=== Show me that Kirk’s knowledge of foreign policy extends beyond pandering to get votes. On what foreign policy issue has Mark Kirk ever reached a conclusion that wasn’t politically expedient for Mark Kirk? As for Mark Kirk getting shot at…. If O-5 intel weanies are getting shot at, I guess the situation in Iraq isn’t very good, is it? Kirk voted for invading Iraq which has hurt U.S. national security. How many thousands of GIs died or were permanently maimed who didn’t vote for invading Iraq? It would be a kind of justice if the first 350 Americans who died in a war were the 350 members of Congress who voted for the war. - Louis G. Atsaves - Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 11:38 am: Oops! Did I say “governor” before. I meant “senator.” Sorry. I can only blame it on a Monday malaise! - phocion - Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 11:47 am: I’ll stand (slightly) corrected. Kirk went to Afghanistan. I would hazard to say that going there is a bit more dangerous than pontificating on a blog. And, Nyberg, are you actually suggesting that those members of Congress who voted for the war should be killed? Dude, up your Prozack, stat! Keep it up, actually. I find it as amusing to mock left wingnuts as I do right wingnuts. - Rob_N - Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 11:52 am: Louis says, “By the over the top reactions of many Democrat blog sites and regular Democratic supporters…” Considering the over the top reactions of many Kirk-fan blog sites and regular Kirk supporters… there appear to be 4 fingers pointing back at you right now, Louis. If he felt he was the best candidate he’d be running by now. Why he’s waiting on anyone else (as he’s clearly stated a few times) is unclear. If he ran for governor and was elected … would he wait on the Speaker or Senate President before making decisions? If he ran for Senate and was elected … would he wait for our Senior Senator, the Senate President or the Minority Leader before making decisions? There’s cautious and then there’s wishy-washy. At least Lisa Madigan (and to be honest I surprise myself in defending her here) is weighing her own options, not waiting on other people to decide things for her. - therealdeal - Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 11:53 am: oK — According to Sneed Emanual was in the meeting but she didn’t note that the guru Axelrod was — here is the story….. June 18, 2009 BY MICHAEL SNEED Sun-Times Columnist Hmmm. Sneed hears President Obama met privately “within the last week” with Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan to discuss her future . . . er, possible, run for the U.S. Senate. The White House meeting included Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and White House Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett, according to a top Sneed source. “She is considering all of her options carefully and weighing how she can serve the public . . . and talking to President Obama is an important part of the decision-making process,” said Robyn Ziegler, Madigan’s spokeswoman. So, who called the White House meeting? “I didn’t ask that question,” Ziegler said. Hmmm. It’s a safe bet that Madigan is rethinking a bid for the governor’s job. “Well, she hasn’t ruled out a Senate bid,” Ziegler said. - Rich Miller - Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 11:58 am: therealdeal, try teh Google… ===Ms. Madigan also talked with David Axelrod, who ran Mr. Obama’s presidential campaign.=== I posted that story on this blog on June 18th. - Carl Nyberg - Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 12:05 pm: If Kirk’s so principled and brave, why is he taking so long to decide on what office to run for? It’s clear the guy thinks he’s got something to contribute on foreign policy. OK. Why not pull the trigger and announce for U.S. Senate? Everybody knows the answer: Kirk is afraid to run against Lisa Madigan. Kirk doesn’t feel strongly enough about foreign policy to withstand the humiliation that would come with losing. Why should anybody been impressed with this guy? Because he’s punched tickets? Because that’s all his career is, punching one ticket after another. What has the guy accomplished in the realm of policy? - VanillaMan - Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 12:15 pm: I think Kirk must be a political player with all the bashing he gets here from the folks who’s record in supporting the right candidates should call into question their ability to bash anyone. The citizens of Illinois are clinging to an capsized boat, yet these anti-GOP yahoos are heckling the rescue ships, claiming that the boat that floats lifeless beneath all of us has a better future and is a better boat, if we can all risk our lives trying to right it. 1.) So I guess based on the heckling here, that Kirk is a player and a concern for these partisans. 2.) Giannoulais has discovered that being friends with Obama is about as good as once being Obama’s spiritual father. Obama has backed over better guys than Giannoulais on his way to the Oval Office. 3.) Lisa Madigan is the Hillary Clinton candidate next year. 4.) Matt Murphy has been looking for a leader in the Illinois GOP for so long, he discovered one in his bathroom mirror. He might not be incorrect, but he has a few million people to convince first. 5.) With the only nationally recognized Indian-American leader in Governor Jindal, why should anyone still question whether Indian-Americans can be supported for office? Long after voters have proven themselves capable of supporting non-WASP candidates, how much longer are journalists going to keep asking if we’re bigots? - Rich Miller - Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 12:22 pm: ===I think Kirk must be a political player with all the bashing he gets here=== Very true. It’s also true that Kirk is waiting on Lisa Madigan’s decision, which doesn’t say much for his courage, but speaks tons about his own political reality. - shore - Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 12:28 pm: 1. Kirk started working for porter in the 80’s, worked for house international affiars in the 90’s, did foreign ops as a congressman in 00’s, and in 10 will still be doing it. That’s 4 decades. 2. I regularly criticize kirk and mckenna on team America’s blog. In my opinion Kirk spends too much time judging by the google alerts I get on baloney like human rights activists in random countries. His former legislative chief jeanette windon now works at state department doing human rights so perhaps that was her thing. He and McKenna have also not built the party in the 10th at all which is why rumsfeld coasted to re-election there and kirk who is far more moderate gets tough races. 3. Unless he thinks his seat is getting taken away in redistricting I don’t see why he’d give up his house seat to run for Senate knowing full well he will be fighting the white house on its home turf and that no moderate Republican has been elected to the senate here since percy in 1978. - Rich Miller - Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 12:30 pm: ===and in 10 will still be doing it. That’s 4 decades.=== LOL. Is that the new new math? LOL - shore - Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 12:42 pm: technically 80’s,90’s,00’s, and 10’s is 4 decades. - Rich Miller - Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 12:43 pm: Um, shore, the ’10s haven’t happened yet. - Rich Miller - Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 12:44 pm: So, the more accurate phrasing would be “spanned” “nearly” four decades, not four decades. Four decades is 40 years. Spanned means it touched all four decades. - shore - Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 12:48 pm: that’s a better way of putting it. You must write for a living. - wordslinger - Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 12:49 pm: There are a few things that don’t really seem to be in dispute: 1. If he can get out of a statewide GOP primary, Kirk is the party’s strongest candidate in a statewide general election. 2. Kirk is waiting on LM, and will break the other way. 3. The Obama White House definitely wants LM to run for Senate. 4. Everybody else has to wait on her. Also, just a little advice for the Kirk folks: He is honorably serving his country in the armed forces reserves. But don’t try to exaggerate his combat record. He doesn’t do that because he’s smart enough to know that it can come back to bite you real hard. - Rob_N - Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 12:51 pm: Not new math. Conservatives’ fuzzy math. Gets used all the time when the mood is right. Smells kinda moldy though. - bored now - Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 12:53 pm: phocion, my understanding is that kirk requested the duty. no one thought he would be put in harm’s way, especially after what happened to pat tillman. if you want to believe that kirk came under fire, you are free to do so. i understand hillary made that claim, as well. which may be a bit too snide, as hillary probably was in a more dangerous place than kirk. kirk gets props for spending his two-week obligation in afghanistan, but only an idiot would contend that he “faced live bullets.” not that there’s anything wrong with being an idiot. you might want to ask kirk where his duty station was in afghanistan — and the last time it faced live fire… - Leroy - Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 1:09 pm: == there’s room for a two-year state senator whose key accomplishment is…um…whose primary accomplishment is…uhhh…. == Worked for Obama and the White House…. - Rob_N - Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 1:10 pm: Shore, Rumsfeld represented the 13th in Illinois back in the 60s. He was succeeded by Crane, not Porter, and over the decades Rumsfeld’s 13th got spliced into portions of the 8th and 10th (with the 13th “moving” south into DuPage). Methinks perhaps changing political moods and demographic movement has more to do with the GOP “base” in the 10th. The area and nearby surrounding areas still have a good many GOP mayors, state legislators, etc. …And the 2010 redistricting may very well be unkind to him as Illinois is projected to lose another seat. - Rob_N - Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 1:11 pm: Leroy, State Sen. Matt Murphy did not work for Obama and the White House. Where’d you get that notion from? - shore - Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 1:18 pm: The best hotel in afghanistan is the serena hotel. Weeks after I stayed there it was bombed. Kirk also flew missions over bosnia where scott o’grady was shot down, iraq in 2000 when sadaam still existed and was shooting at u.s. planes and that’s what’s been de-classified. There’s no comparison between being a reservist and being a senator. Having staffed those trips with congressmen and then been over as a low-level beuracrat punk, there’s a major difference. Members get huge diplomatic security contingents among other things. Reservists are sent to do a job. - memsaab - Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 1:18 pm: 1) Kirk will wait on LM 2) If LM runs for Senate, can Proft,Dillard, Murphy etal. compete with Kirk on the fundraising spectrum? Don’t think so! 3) Can Kirk sway downstaters and independents? his votes (bad) on the 2nd Amend. and choice not exactly from the GOP manual 4) I’m afraid we are blue for quite sometime…thats a painfull thought - Bubs - Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 1:19 pm: I agree with a point Yellow Dog Democrat made some time ago. In Illinois the Republicans always run the wrong candidate for the wrong job. All these Conservatives are running for Governor, leaving the Moderate to run for Senate. It should be just the other way around. I have been told time and again by independents they are uncomfortable with a Conservative in a chief executive office (which has huge influence on social and spending policies) since they believe a Conservative Agenda will be imposed, with which they do not fully agree. A Moderate Republican will be given the benefit of the doubt to avoid racial moves. On the other hand, independents often express a willingness to consider a Conservative for Senate, where he is 1 of 100 votes. I should think that would only increase when the Senator is a check on the more liberal tendencies of Democratic Administrations - such as Obama’s brand of “Creeping Socialism.” Peter Fitzgerald is a classic example of how this can work. I hope to see Lisa Madigan run for Senate against a conservative Republican, and Mark Kirk run for Governor. I dream that if that scenario plays out, some of the Conservatives now in the gubernatorial would consider switching as well. But I hold out no actual hope that they will - I would just prepare for yet another Primary Bloodbath. This is the GOP in Illinois, after all. - Rich Miller - Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 1:26 pm: ===The best hotel in afghanistan is the serena hotel. Weeks after I stayed there it was bombed. Kirk also flew missions over bosnia where scott o’grady was shot down, iraq in 2000 when sadaam still existed and was shooting at u.s. planes and that’s what’s been de-classified.=== That’s all quite a stretch. I could do much the same thing with my travels to Iraq, Kosovo, Serbia, Albania, Chicago’s West Side and East St. Louis late at night, etc., but it would look pretty silly and self-serving. Also, I once made a wrong turn and ended up in the South Bronx at 3 o’clock in the morning. lol Just sayin… - Rich Miller - Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 1:28 pm: Come to think of it, my misadventures in Serbia (arrested and put on trial) were also due to a wrong turn. A pattern develops… - 10th Indy - Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 1:34 pm: Are we really questioning the courage of a former member of the US Navy and current US Navy Reservist who served in Iraq, Bosnia and Afghanistan? Because he has not announced what public office he is going to run for in 2010? Why shouldn’t he wait? He can still raise money for a federal race that can be used state-wide, he can put together a team and a strategy, and he can think about where he can do the most good (and that includes where he is most likely to win because if he doesn’t win he can’t do any good). And while he waits, the Dems, lacking a clear Republican opponent to focus on, fire at each other and look a little desperate. Maybe it’s not cautious or wishy-washy – maybe it’s smart. - Amy - Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 1:36 pm: there’s not a required time frame, except for the filings, so everyone can do what they want and freak out other candidates and make us all speculate. fun. Jan S. bowed out, thus proving that no one really took her seriously with all that Creamer baggage. - Rich Miller - Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 1:37 pm: ===Are we really questioning the courage of a former member of the US Navy and current US Navy Reservist who served in Iraq, Bosnia and Afghanistan? Because he has not announced what public office he is going to run for in 2010? === Physical courage? No. Political courage? Yes. He’s admitted that he’s waiting on Lisa Madigan. So, it’s fair to call his political courage into question. - Carl Nyberg - Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 2:04 pm: Kirk is an intelligence officer, not a pilot. If he’s in a combat aircraft, it’s b/c he’s pulled strings and he wanted it, not b/c of some military necessity. In other words, every time Kirk was “in combat” he was punching a ticket, not doing something essential or even useful. - bored now - Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 2:07 pm: while it’s cute that some people appear to think that mark kirk walks on water, the reality is that a.) kirk went to afghanistan on a counter-narcotics mission, not a counter-terrorism one; b.) he went after crops were harvested; and c.) 3 americans died in afghanistan that month (by comparison, 21 americans have already died in afghanistan this month). generally, winter marks the annual cease-fire, although ieds remain problematic. personally, i’d be surprised if any naval commander in afghanistan has come under fire, but to think that a congressman who serves as a reservist was placed in a high-risk area is absurd (again, noting the exceptions for those who think he walks on water). iirc, he went with lindsey graham, who certainly has made no claims of “facing live bullets.” kirk is in more danger when he goes clubbing in washington, dc than he was in afghanistan during the winter… - 10th Indy - Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 2:10 pm: Fair enough Rich, but comments like “my understanding is that kirk requested the duty. no one thought he would be put in harm’s way” ; “Prince Harry saw more action than Congressman Kirk did.” and “0-5 intel weanies” and others don’t question his political courage, they belittle his service. - Rich Miller - Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 2:11 pm: ===others don’t question his political courage, they belittle his service. === I agree. Please, stop it. - Louis G. Atsaves - Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 2:13 pm: So intelligence officers do nothing essential or even useful? If he is in a combat aircraft, it was because he pulled some strings? You have some proof that Kirk “pulled some strings” to be put into a combat aircraft? - phocion - Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 2:30 pm: “Physical courage? No. Political courage? Yes. He’s admitted that he’s waiting on Lisa Madigan. So, it’s fair to call his political courage into question.” Look, the guy doesn’t walk on water. Swift boat attacks, however, are no more appropriate when aimed at a Republican than at a Democrat. Calling into question Kirk’s political courage isn’t so over the top, I would agree. Although I would say waiting on Lisa is more prudence than cowardice. Ms. Madigan would clobber Kirk in a 2010 Senate contest. So why would he give up his now safe House seat only to go on a political suicide mission? - Raz - Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 2:35 pm: All hail the great and powerfull LISA? - Carl Nyberg - Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 2:36 pm: Rich, Mark Kirk is a Congressman who is a reserve Navy officer. His specialty is intelligence. What’s that mean? Kirk bosses around the enlist guys who analyze photographs and manipulate information. Presumably Kirk keeps things organized and has the big picture on intelligence matters. Mark Kirk wants to sell himself as some sort of war hero. It’s BS. He may be taking advantage of fools who want to believe. He may be preying on their foolishness. I don’t know. But if Mark Kirk is in a combat aircraft getting shot at, it’s b/c he pulled strings to get there. It’s probably an inconvenience for the commander to have a celebrity officer there anyway. If Kirk’s supporters are going to sell his military experience, I’m gonna point out that–for me–it’s more evidence he’s a poseur. I don’t like dropping my experience and resume, b/c an argument should stand on its own, but since it seems relevant. 1. I did graduate from the U.S. Naval Academy. 2. I did serve as an active duty Navy officer for 7+ years. 3. I did *volunteer* as a UN peacekeeper in Cambodia. 4. I was a whistleblower about abuses in Navy Recruiting Command. My friends were retaliated against for me complaining. 5. I have worked on military and security issues since leaving active duty. 6. I have discussed military personnel issues face-to-face with Kirk and found him to be some mix of dishonest and/or ignorant. 7. And I realized invading Iraq was a dumb idea before the invasion. So, if some Republican fools (not sure if they even rise to the level of hacks) think we should be impressed b/c Kirk has been in a combat zone, I’m going to knock down those wannabe-war-hero-but-really-just-a-privileged-bureaucrat arguments. - shore - Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 2:40 pm: 1. Obama didn’t send 17,000 troops to afghanistan so they could get some volleyball in helmand province. Serena is the only decent hotel in kabul and was blown up. For the record has lisa madigan ever been out of the country for anything other than an upper-middle class feel good trip to south africa to teach some kids to read for a few months? 2. narcotics are the source of funds for the taliban which is why the work is so dangerous. Most afghans refuse to help manual eradication efforts because they come under attack from the taliban. Bored now, this is a lot more dangerous than dan seals stint passing paper at commerce. 3. The contrast between kirk’s work for the navy-he was named reservist of the year in 1999, and alexi who hilariously bragged to fancy michigan avenue magazine that he dresses like an old school diplomat is hilarious. - Adam Smith - Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 2:46 pm: Enough splitting hairs about Kirk’s military record. Nyberg, tell your handlers at the DNC to get their facts straight. You are incorrect. Kirk, as an intelligence officer, flies in an electronic warfare aircraft called an EA-6B. It’s mission is to go FIRST over hostile areas, identify and destroy radar and tracking sites that threaten combat aircraft that are going to undertake bombing or combat support missions. While the intel officer in an EA-6B is not a pilot, he/she is shot at just the same. This is information readily available from Kirk’s bio and media interviews he’s done. Your uniformed comment is akin to saying the bombadier in a b-17 over Germany wasn’t in danger because he wasn’t flying the plane. Kirk did not fly in Afghanistan, but that is no reason to diminish his years of military service or the combat missions he participated in. Everyone with knowledge of the military knows that as you get older and more senior (whether you are in Congress or not) you see less danger. Of course the DOD didn’t want to see a member of Congress get whacked, but Kirk could have hung up the uniform years ago. To imply that he uses the uniform as some sort of prop is a risky course to take and could offend many. Now that we have that clarified. You can get back to your carping. As far as “political courage,” it guess that is the equivalent of making the fastest decision possible even thought the other party is in the midst of its own chaotic machinations over the Seante seat. Kirk is able to bide his time and should. - bored now - Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 2:48 pm: swift boat attacks??? had you not erroneously stated where kirk served, gratuitously over-exaggerated the danger kirk faced and simultaneously insulted a veteran who did not sign up while on congressional staff, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. you want to glorify kirk, that’s fine. you better be accurate. but if you’re going to insult veterans while doing so, then you got a problem. i merely corrected your errors. period. - Rich Miller - Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 2:49 pm: Enough, please. Move along. - shore - Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 2:54 pm: It’s just fascinating to some how kirk gets trashed on this blog for his military service while Alexi and Lisa (who have none, although perhaps his junket to greece and her book reading in an african village make them qualified) are given god like treatment for being statewide officials in a government drowning in red ink, job losses, and corruption. - Rich Miller - Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 3:00 pm: ===her book reading in an african village === Shore, innumerable comments like that show why you are the most partisan commenter on this blog, bar none. And that’s why you are so easily dismissed. Good luck with that campaign. - phocion - Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 3:10 pm: I’ll move along, Rich, but first: bored now - that’s the second time you’ve insulted me. I said Iraq instead of Afghanistan, big deal. I won’t agree with the garbage that I am reading here calling into question going into a warzone (I always admired Rich Miller for doing that - takes guts). I hear nothing but far left rumor-mongering about Kirk’s service as “facts.” Sorry, that’s no more credible than the right wing smears agsinst Kerry. As to insulting a veteran - do you mean Nyberg? I know Nyberg, and know his military and civilian history. Nyberg worked hard to get Charles Flowers elected as Regional Schools Superintendent. How’d that one work out? Or, bored, are you a veteran? Cuz I didn’t know, and my insults weren’t against your service. period. I do not diminish anyone’s service for this nation. If I have insulted him or you, it is for his over the top attacks on this and other blogs, and not for his service to the nation. Big difference. Attacks against veterans’ service (except the Confederate Army and Lee Harvey Oswald) are just uncool. And, shore, Rich is right. Your comments don’t serve your partisan interests. Must be a fool moon tonight. - 10th Indy - Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 3:12 pm: God help us all if this is the level this race has stooped to before it has even begun. Kirk gets bashed for honorable military service; Lisa gets bashed for honorable volunteerism in South Africa. Rich - I know you hate the word but I, for one, am ashamed. - shore - Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 3:47 pm: For the record. I’m a moderate pro-choice Republican on the far left of our party, don’t listen to rush, and don’t read illinois review because it’s too conservative for my taste. I regularly express my displeasure with Kirk and McKenna on team america’s blog for failing to put up more of a party up in the north burbs. I do have an issue however with what’s happening in the state. 49th in job creation, we haven’t gained a congressional district in how long?, meaning people don’t want to come live here aside from my friends taking jobs at bain in the city, and can’t recall a day on this blog where there’s been news that would amount to good policy in action. I turn on chicago tonight every evening and the stories are either 1)corruption 2)state cutting something or raising taxes 3)speculation as to what state democrats get to move up. Not right. Any democrat who turned on cnn in 2005 watching katrina, watching iraq, watching abramoff and then watching the media blow air kisses at people like delay and others if they started talking higher office would have the same frustration I have right now. - Rob_N - Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 3:48 pm: Hey, I thought I was the most partisan commenter on this blog … apparently now that’s “most partisan, bar one”. Then again I’ve never dressed like an old school diplomat or read books in an African village either (let alone read books about an African village while looking dapper). …That said, 10th Indy and Phocion, if Kirk’s campaign team and his fan base don’t want slime thrown their way they ought to stop shoveling it into their own trebuchets. There’s too many ‘troublemakers’ here and elsewhere on the Internets to not expect fire to be fought with fire. - Rob_N - Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 4:01 pm: Shore says, “we haven’t gained a congressional district in how long?, meaning people don’t want to come live here aside from my friends taking jobs at bain in the city” Methinks that has more to do with snow than not enough jobs at “bain in the city”. Several northern states are losing Congressional seats to warmer, sunnier southern states. It’s not just Illinois. - 10th Indy - Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 4:39 pm: Really? The “they did it first” excuse? Fight fire with fire? Is civility too much to ask for anymore? or decency? Or is scoring points more important? All due respect, but I think we need some new rules. - Rob_N - Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 4:57 pm: 10th Indy: you chided, I replied. Why would either side come to a campaign with one (or two) hands tied behind their back? Professor Hank Perritt went at Kirk with a rather quite civil campaign. Kirk tromped him with 69% of the vote. Lee Goodman was perhaps not quite as civil in his righteous anger against his opponent. Kirk handled him with 64% of the vote. Dan Seals went after Kirk with gusto, and Kirk’s fans fought back with smear after smear. Kirk was held to “only” 53% of the vote the last two cycles. And there’s always the referees like Rich around to tell people to cool their jets when the devolution just swirls in circles. Civility in politics would be great, just ask Caesar about the Ides of March… - 10th Indy - Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 5:39 pm: Rob, There’s nothing wrong with tough, hard fought campaigns. And we all know negative works. But do you honestly think Kirk’s Dem opponents are going to try to smear him by belittling his military service? Not gonna happen - anymore than Kirk would try to belittle Lisa Madigan for volunteering as a teacher in South Africa. Fact is, it got mean here today and we should all be better – without Rich having to play babysitter. Good lord am I chiding again? …. ugh - Rob_N - Monday, Jun 22, 09 @ 11:05 pm: 10th, I agree the snark against Kirk went just as overboard as the cheerleading for him… (Though you’d be hard-pressed to use real math to turn ~25 years of DC experience into “nearly 4 decades” let alone Kirk’s military activity — including pre-Iraq War No Fly Zone patrols — as including “real live bullets”…) And while Rep. Kirk himself (or quite possibly even his direct reports on the campaign team) very likely would not belittle any opponent’s volunteerism or service resume, let me introduce you to Team America + Co. who very likely would and in fact routinely do. After all, Kirk’s fans have belittled college professors by going on ad nauseum while trying to spin an explanation for why a college professor is not a college professor. They even like to come up with cute sandbox nicknames for opponents like “pup” or “seal pup” and the latest, “chipmunk”, for Sen. Bond. Because Kirk’s adoring fans are adults, donchaknow. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.