Appearing before a Republican audience in the Chicago suburbs Friday, Rep. Mark Kirk, the GOP nominee for Senate, sought to rally the partisan crowd with language about President Obama that may not sit well with some Illinois voters.
“We are on the way to making this guy a one-termer,” Kirk said of Obama at a Republican dinner in Winnetka, according to audio obtained by POLITICO. The congressman was speaking in the context of how, with a Republican president, the GOP may be able to repeal healthcare legislation before much it goes into effect.
Aside from calling the president “this guy,” Kirk’s prediction of an Obama re-election defeat in 2012 puts him out of step with how most residents of the state feel about their own president.
“This guy?” “One-termer?” Dumb — even if the context of the remark was that a Republican president might be able to repeal Obama care and other things before they’re in effect long.
Rasmussen’s latest poll had Obama with a 56 percent job approval rating - far above where Rasmussen has the rest of the country.
And it’s not just Kirk’s language, it’s what he was saying. Repealing the healthcare legislation before it’s enacted is fine with the base, but just over half of Illinoisans told Rasmussen recently that they support the plan. Again, well above support levels Rasmussen reports for the rest of the nation.
* Both US Senate candidates issued press releases in the past twelve hours or so. From Alexi Giannoulias…
“We saw [yesterday] yet another disturbing sign that we have a long, hard road ahead of us when it comes to our economic recovery. People are really hurting right now, and with Illinois’ unemployment rate above 12 percent, we can’t afford to look to the broken economic policies of the past. It’s clear that we need a fresh voice in the Senate who will work for Illinois’ families and support policies that will create new, good jobs and help our businesses grow. I’m the only candidate in this race to put forward a comprehensive economic plan that would create jobs and get our economy growing again.”
Kirk…
The Kirk for Senate campaign today urged Illinois Senate candidate Alexi Giannoulias to answer questions regarding a $1.2 million loan made to Nick Giannis, the Giannoulias campaign supporter arrested last week on bank fraud charges. The campaign also renewed its 12-day old request that Giannoulias and Broadway Bank release all documents related to loans and credit extended to organized crime figure Michael “Jaws” Giorango.
That’s pretty much how this campaign is gonna go.
…Adding… From the Giannoulias campaign…
“I was disappointed in Republican Congressman Mark Kirk’s disrespectful remarks referring to our commander-in-chief as ‘this guy’ and gleefully admitting he is working with Republicans to obstruct meaningful reform. He should apologize and get to work immediately with our President to tackle the enormous challenges we face. Illinois voters have a clear choice in this campaign: while President Obama and I will fight hard to move this country forward, Mark Kirk is just another typical Washington insider who would clearly rather stand with the corporate special interests and obstruct progress than get things done.”
* AIP endorses Joe Bell of Illinois for the United States Senate: America’s Independent Party affiliates, in Illinois and across America, enthusiastically endorse the 2010 candidacy of Independent Joe Bell for the United States Senate from the great State of Illinois!
as i’ve said over and over, the choice in november will be between one candidate who will go to washington and support the president’s agenda of hope and change and one candidate who plays inside washington games, says one thing to partisans and another in advertising, but will stand with the washington republican leadership every single day helping to obstruct president obama. illinois deserves better than a lapdog for mitch mcconnell…
- Will County Woman - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 8:31 am:
The Cheryle Jackson story is interesting. I’m not sure what exactly to make of it on the heels of her failed U.S. Senate primary bid. I wonder who is in line to replace her at CUL?
At this point, I don’t think Kirk gains anything from bringing Obama into the conversation. He beat his party’s right wing in the primary; they have nowhere to go. He should continue to the center.
This is Kirk’s career in a nutshell: Be an independent when you’re talking to independents, and toss red meat at the right-wingers when you think no one else is listening. He’s going to learn that’s a lot easier to do in a House race than in the spotlight of a nationally targeted statewide Senate contest.
It is the same thing over and over again from Kirk to the point that it is nearing comedy.
He keeps using these D.C. talking points that really carry no weight here. I know he has been out in D.C. a long time, but still - he has to have done some Illinois-based message polling, right?
I think we should start a pool on what talking point he will use next:
- Acorn?
- Death Panels?
- Birth Certificate?
- Passing health care reform without a vote?
- The nuclear option?
Mark Kirk is supposed to be running against Alexi, not Obama. And despite Alexi’s problems with Bright Start and the family bank, he is gonna have a really hard time beating him November. So why bring Obama into it.
Oh, you Republicans. Billions of dollars in campaign contributions flow through your party one way or another, and you can’t find somebody smart to run these campaigns? Maybe contributors should ask for their money back.
His campaign needs an injection of focus and discipline or else Illinois will elect another unqualified, ethically challenged, empty suit.
- grand old partisan - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 8:56 am:
“And it’s not just Kirk’s language…” -
While it’s always preferable for political discourse to be conducted in a respectful way, it’s not like the President himself gets hung up on such protocol. At the healthcare summit he referred to members of Congress exclusively by their first names. So I don’t see why he (or anyone else for that matter) should get too bothered by others referring to him in such a casual way on the stump.
“illinois deserves better than a lapdog for mitch mcconnell” –
Oh, please! Any objective, reality based comparison would conclude that Mark Kirk is FAR more likely to be independent from his party’s leadership than Alexi would be from his. You think Alexi is going to vote differently than Durbin anything more than 0.0001% of the time?
This is a pro-Obama state. There is a wave of anti-Obama feelings sweeping the US and it is getting worse for the President. Congress is flat-out hated by almost half the country. It has an approval rate that ranks with Rod Blagojevich’s.
At what point will Illinois follow suit? Kirk seems to be ahead of the curve politically, especially for Illinois. That doesn’t look good now, but will it look all that bad in seven months?
If Congress continues down the path it has been going over the past year, Illinois will eventually be swamped with the same intensity of anti-incumbant fever that is gripping the rest of the US.
Kirk is no dummy. There is a reason he is doing this. He didn’t survive Congressional elections making mistakes. He can’t be both “appeaser” and “instigator” and survive as he has. My bet is that Kirk has polling information that he is chasing across Illinois for a General Election win.
I predicted last year that this mid-term will be hard on the President, but right now it looks like he is going to be “slaughtered”, (pun intended) in a massive historic loss.
One term? Right now I cannot believe that a moderate Democrat hasn’t already stepped up and started opposing Obama and this humongous political disaster to save our party.
Maybe Obama is still more popular in Illinois than anywhere else, but don’t forget, there are still a lot of people in Illinois who DON’T approve of the direction in which he is taking this country. I’m guessing that a sizeable percentage of them are undecided about whether to vote for Kirk or just not vote for anyone in the Senate race. Obviously, Kirk needs their votes too.
Referring to the POTUS as “this guy” may be disrespectful, but to say he could be a one-term president is not an unreasonable or outlandish prediction to make at this point. Especially since Illinois alone doesn’t have nearly enough electoral votes to keep Obama in office.
WCW Herman Brewer is believed to be in line to replace Cheryle at the Urban League. I know both personally and if it is Herman it will be an excellent choice. Herman has served as the acting head of the Urban League during Cheryle’s campaign and his performance in the capacity has been impressive.
brennan: sure. how many democrats and independents/swing voters do you think want to a elect a senator who’s sole purpose is to serve as another vote to obstruct our favorite son’s agenda?
grand old partisan: you make this two easy. i’ll forgive you for your lack of objectivity, but the facts are simple. alexi giannoulias stood up to one of the most withering assaults a political party has ever made against one of its candidates in a primary. there is no question that alexi has proven his political independence. in contrast, mark kirk has NEVER stood up to the republican leadership in the house on a whipped vote (although he has voted against his leadership WITH their permission). and mark kirk stood with the most reckless administration in my lifetime, declaring that he knew iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and using his status as a naval reserve intelligence officer to mute serious questions to the contrary. kirk has no history of political independence, as much as he likes the word. and if i have to choose between a supporter of george w. bush and barack obama, i’ll come down on the side of illinois’ own every single time.
wizard: senators from illinois should generally support our favorite son in the white house. our elected officials in washington should help president obama succeed, instead of obstructing his leadership and his desire to unite the country. i wouldn’t think that too much to ask of any serious politician in the state…
=how many democrats and independents/swing voters do you think want to a elect a senator who’s sole purpose is to serve as another vote to obstruct our favorite son’s agenda?=
53.1% of the voters in Massachusetts just did that. Maybe they were just sick of the Kennedy Seat. Maybe they already knew what a universal health insurance policy actually does to your state. Maybe they just like a guy in Carhart jackets in a pickup truck.
I don’t like Kirk’s comments. Their tacky. He doesn’t need them. He’s better off talking about his opponents that want to raise taxes on the middle class.
Geez Bored Now, will you please can the “obstructionist” babble?
It makes you sound so ridiculous. Everyone knows that the reason Our Favorite Son is having problems is because he doesn’t have the support of his own party. With massive majorities in Congress, the reason for his failures right now is because of his own party.
So, please find another reason not to vote for Kirk and push that for a change.
Kirk is running as an Independent Republican, not just an independent. It’s a strong position given the total democratic control in Illinois and Washington and the total mess in both. The progressive left’s attempts to paint him as a far-right goon at the same time the right-wing labels him a RINO, only serves to re-enforce that Kirk is who he says he is – a socially moderate, fiscal conservative who works across the aisle to get things done for the people he represents.
===With massive majorities in Congress, the reason for his failures right now is because of his own party===
VM, where do you get your news? I seem to recall that health care reform legislation passed the House and the Senate. It’s going to pass again in the House this week.
Just because the GOP loudly exclaims that “the American people” have already rejected the bill, the fact remains that the House and Senate have approved two versions of it.
And Mark Kirk is a chamleon. He changes colors to blend in with his surroundings. It’s a survival skill that has kept in office, but the gag is getting old and he won’t be getting away with it this time.
Rep. Kirk isn’t a socially moderate, fiscal conservative. He’s socially liberal and fiscally moderate. His latest rating from Planned Parenthood is 100%, and his latest rating from Gun Owners of America is 0%. He ensured that the federal government spent at least $5 million, each, in his district, for Metra, HUD, Head Start, and local police departments. He voted for cap & trade.
===He ensured that the federal government spent at least $5 million, each, in his district, for Metra, HUD, Head Start, and local police departments. ===
Oh, yeah, that’s so horrible. Money for transit, housing, education and coppers.
You’ve used that line a few times before. Time to come up with a new one.
- Will County Woman - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 10:20 am:
wndycty, win or lose was it cheryle’s intention not to return to cul after the primary? i never thought much of her politically, but by all appearences she did well at cul. then again i wonder if her deciding to run for the senate on whim was problematic to cul because some might have preferred she finish what she started and not been distracted by a u.s. senate run conisdering that she was a long-shot all along? additionally she ran a bad campaign, and it showed by the results she got.
===His latest rating from Planned Parenthood is 100%, and his latest rating from Gun Owners of America is 0%. He ensured that the federal government spent at least $5 million, each, in his district, for Metra, HUD, Head Start, and local police departments. He voted for cap & trade.===
Hey! maybe Kirk isn’t so bad after all.
==senators from illinois should generally support our favorite son in the white house. our elected officials in washington should help president obama succeed instead of obstructing==
You crack me up, bored. I’m sure you will feel exactly the same way about “our elected officials” helping the President to succeed next time a person of the other party occupies the oval office! Or, with a Republican in the White House sometime down the road will you suddenly have an epiphany that Presidents are not always perfect and that their policies may justify some reasonable obstructing both from within and outside their party.
I would like to posit a more rational alternative to your pronouncement:
Senators from Illinois should always represent the interests of their constituents regardless of whomever is in the White House. (Hope you don’t mind that I added a few capital letters.)
bored now: no, senators from illinois should not automatically support the white house. support should be earned on the merits of the issue. that should be the case regardless of the party in the white house. one other note; the president may be your favored son, but he cetainly is not mine. that’s as inane as dallas calling the cowboys america’s team.
- The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 11:04 am:
===
…the choice in november will be between one candidate who will go to washington and support the president’s agenda of hope and change and one candidate who plays inside washington games…
===
bored, as NewsMax pointed out in December, Kirk has a reptutation for his “mild-mannered ability” to work with everyone, which makes him extremely popular in Congress on both sides of the aisle.
Therefore, it would seem that those calling him an “obstructionist” and worse (really…just sayin’!) seems to reflect more of a personal rather than popular opinion–and certainly not the opinion of those who work with him on a daily basis to get things done in DC.
So the health care reform legislation has not been approved by both the House and the Senate? I must be crazy.
Check out CNN, crazy man! 11 Democrats have confirmed a “no” vote. No one knows when the headless chicken will land as it jumps around, but everyone sees that it hasn’t a head and no one believes it is really alive even though it still kicks.
- The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 11:10 am:
I’ll also add that there seem to be plenty of folks in DC who actually have a reputation for being “arrogant jerks” because the description fits based on their personality, or perhaps they’re very easy going folks but its a persona they don to meet their objectives.
Either way, very few who know–and work with–Kirk seem to agree that the term applies to him.
- The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 11:18 am:
Sorry for all the typos and grammatical errors (obviously need more coffee), but the point should be clear.
The House passed a health care reform bill last year. On Christmas Eve, the Senate passed a health care reform bill. Each of these bills represents an enormous legislative achievement by Obama and the Democrats. Bill Clinton didn’t even get his legislation approved in a single Congressional committee, and now Obama is on the brink of the most sweeping overhaul of our healthcare system since Lyndon Johnson’s Medicare program. That’s some definition of failure you have there.
Now, before you call me more names, go back and re-read what you posted earlier about the President’s failures being the fault of Democrats. You write some pretty stupid comments from time to time and I enjoy tearing those to shreds. Keep it up, I also have a lot of time.
And for Mark Kirk to campaign against Obama in Illinois, that’s like a gift for the Democrats. In tennis, they call that an unforced error. But by all means, keep insisting that health care is going to die and that Kirk will repeal it if it does. Bring it on, as someone famous once said.
Vanilla says, “There is a wave of anti-Obama feelings sweeping the US and it is getting worse for the President.”
Really? Last I checked his polling had simply come down to normality from stratospheric. He’s polling better than Reagan at this point in a side-by-side comparison (ie, one year into their administration’s) and is light years ahead of George “We Don’t Miss You at All” Bush.
Vanilla also says, “Congress is flat-out hated by almost half the country.”
True, with House and Senate Republican caucuses polling far below their Dem counterparts.
And, as has been mentioned, the polling is even more stark (ie, more pro-Obama and pro-Dem) in Illinois than it is nationally.
Next time you refer to polling, do a little digging so as to get some context before making more pointless points.
Con Vet says, “Rep. Kirk isn’t a socially moderate, fiscal conservative. He’s socially liberal and fiscally moderate. … He ensured that the federal government spent at least $5 million, each, in his district, for Metra, HUD, Head Start, and local police departments. He voted for cap & trade.”
And that’s just the problem with Kirk.
Conservatives don’t know if Moderate Mark will show up any more than indies and moderates know that Conservative Kirk will stay away.
He voted for cap and trade (for national security! no less) before saying he’d voted against it in the Senate.
He secured a bunch of multi-million dollar outlays all while getting on the House floor and 10th district podiums to complain about earmarks.
He voted for the Iraq War before voting against it (literally).
How can anyone know what he’ll do?
Even if he’s telling suburban teabaggers he’ll block the president’s agenda … how do they know he actually will since he’s already voted for part of it with cap and trade?
And even if his TV commercial says he’s independent … how do we know he won’t just block the president’s agenda along with the rest of the Party of No-Nothings like he says he will?
- The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 12:16 pm:
Rob, with all due respect, all of your rhetorical questions seem to be based–intentionally, I’d guess–on a very simplistic view of the world. And, I’m sure that you know what the reality is.
Items are intentionally bundled together into a Bill, which can change the way one would have voted on one issue because of the importance of another that was “slipped in”–sometimes even at the last minute.
Furthermore, Kirk has been representing his District for five terms now–which is a long time–and the demographics and “sentiment” surely must have changed at least once or twice during that time. If Kirk hadn’t changed his position on a few things, it would be an indication that he’s NOT listening and therefore is NOT representing the Constituents who live(d) there (at the time) well.
What guarantees does anyone have that Giannoulias won’t switch his positions on issues once he gets into office?
There’s a very solid argument that can be made FOR Kirk within the context of representation, and “adjustments” he’s made within the District based on the folks who have moved in and out of there during that period. He’s obviously been re-elected several times, so many voters must be pleased with what he’s doing.
Alexi will ignore the over used and re-tred arguments agains the bank.
Instead he will continue to cast this election as a choice between a supporter of Pres Obama, and a supporter of Pres Bush. If he can get that narrative to take hold, he wins easily. Kirk plays right into his hands with a comment like this.
Regardless, Kirk is going to have a real hard time running from his record of support for Pres Bush by hiding behind a couple “independent” votes. Expecially when he votes against the Jobs bill, the Health Care bill, and soon to come Climate Change bill. All very popular in Illinois.
Brennan: you’re right, 53.1% of the voters in a massachusetts special election did just that. but we aren’t talking about a president kerry, and we aren’t talking about a special election.
VM: i missed where i called kirk an “obstructionist.” feel free to point out where i did. instead, i noted a curious reality about mark kirk. he’s never shown himself to stand up to his party (without their permission, of course) and he’s asking to be elected to mitch mcconnell’s caucus, which has a narrowly-focused agenda: to deny the president any victory, any form thereof, any time. given kirk’s history of sucking up to the slimmiest of politicians that this nation has had to offer in the last decade, it’s hard to argue that he’s going to stand up to mitch mcconnell or act independently of the conservative republican caucus in the senate.
10th Indy: kirk uses the label of independent, but he has no real history of independence. i merely repeat the question again: name a time when he’s gone against his leadership in the house ON A WHIPPED VOTE without their permission to do so. in contrast, alexis giannoulias demonstrated his political independence the moment he got into the race for state treasurer. he has the scars to prove it.
Responsa: i’ll just take your comment for a bit of ignorance about my past. which is ok. but, yeah, i’d argue the same thing for, say, texas senators when the bush’s occupied the white house or for california senators when reagan did. when supporting their favorite sons in the white house they ARE representing the interests of their constituents. (you’ll notice that i used capital letters here).
wizard: i didn’t exactly say that senators from illinois should automatically support the white house. i said: “senators from illinois should generally support our favorite son in the white house. our elected officials in washington should help president obama succeed, instead of obstructing his leadership and his desire to unite the country. i wouldn’t think that too much to ask of any serious politician in the state.” i don’t know if you’ve noticed, but dallas does market the cowboys as “america’s team.” whether or not you choose to support your state and our political interests is really up to you. this is, after all, america.
The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous: i’m not arguing that mark kirk isn’t a nice guy. i’m saying that he is the consummate beltway insider who knows how to survive. as such, we can have no expectation that he will actually be an independent voice inside the conservative senate republican caucus, but that he will fall in line to mitch mcconnell’s
“obstructionist” strategy (to use the words of my friend, vanillaman). having said that, you and i must talk to different people in d.c. you have a higher opinion of kirk than the people i know there!
- The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 12:37 pm:
Rob, if he doesn’t survive, then he can’t fight–on our behalf–the next day.
And, that obviously applies to everyone in office.
- The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 12:39 pm:
Mea culpa. That last one should have been addressed to bored. Coffee!!!!
i’m not begrudging kirk’s survival skills. nothing wrong with that. i’m merely observing that he can’t very well argue that he’s independent given the current leadership of senate republicans. i certainly wouldn’t want to be mark kirk in this environment. he represents the current, broken-down political system in washington. alexis giannoulias wants to join barack obama in fixing washington and turning this country around…
- The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 1:06 pm:
(Catching up. Seems everyone decided to run out for coffee at the same time. lol)
Kirk’s independence is backed up by his voting record. National Journal and CQ review his voting record and consistently put him in the center of the house.
- The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 1:27 pm:
I’m not being rude, bored, but I honestly don’t know how to respond to that last one. Based on my previous statements, it should be obvious that I don’t agree that Kirk “represents the current, broken-down political system in washington” because I believe he’s doing–and has been doing–a great job representing a HIGHLY complex District. That track record indicates that he’s therefore in a position to represent the entire State (and our Country) very well once he’s elected to the Senate.
And with regard to Giannoulias’ “turning this country around” with our President, that would depend alot I suppose on the direction one believes we should be taking. Since you’re approaching this at a very general level, I will, too.
Quite honestly, I have some concerns that both R Moderates and Conservatives seem to share on the issues we all have in common. And, it’s KIRK’s background, knowledge, and experience that put HIM in a very unique position to turn that around for us.
==Responsa: i’ll just take your comment for a bit of ignorance about my past. which is ok.==
Gee, bored, that sounded a lot like one of those “don’t you know who I am?” statements. If you are someone “important” with a “past” that we should all be aware of then you’ll have to excuse me. Because I, at least, have no idea who you are. I just basically take your regular comments and retorts on this blog at face value–and at face value a great deal of the time they are eye rollers.
- The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 1:51 pm:
Responsa, bored might have been referring to his “tenure” on CapFax and therefore other bloggers’ familiarity with where he stands on issues, etc.
Responsa: sorry, no one important. just someone who spent my time on the “other side of the aisle” before i came to this blog (or, to be accurate, before 2003). that’s no secret…
- The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 1:56 pm:
You’re underestimating your contribution, bored, to keeping some good debates going…for whatever reasons you may have.
Bored now, if Alexi wins, he probably wouldn’t “turn the country around.” We have democrat president, and both houses of Congress are controlled by Democrats. If you want to elect someone who will change Congress, you’ll elect conservatives.
Perhaps you ought to look into polling on what the 10th district does and ask why Rep. Kirk has voted contra to those positions in the House.
For instance, his flip on voting against Iraq only came after Seals gave him a scare in their first match-up, not because the 10th’s constituents suddenly went negative on Bush’s war.
In fact, his weak “just votin’ my district” canard also doesn’t match up with his record. The 10th (and the state as a whole) has consistently supported Pres. Obama’s efforts to reform health care (pinkocommienazisocialistafricanwitchdoctor government takeover of death panels and all) yet Kirk has consistently opposed it, both as a Representative (distinctly not representing the will of his district) and in his position statements as a Senate candidate (again, distinctly not representing the will of our state).
Please explain how my “simplistic” views somehow do not match this reality?
Kirk himself can’t explain from one audience to the next where he actually stands on the issues of the day (excuse me, his “adjustments”), let alone his votes on Capitol Hill.
Nor, clearly, can you.
- The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 2:36 pm:
===
Please explain how my “simplistic” views somehow do not match this reality?
===
A “simplistic” answer: He keeps getting re-elected by Voters regardless of what a particular poll might say–perhaps indicating that polls are not the only source one should consider in making decisions.
Kirk was one of the few elected officials of either party to hold town hall meetings on health care this summer when others were in hiding. He, along with the majority of the state according to the latest Rasmussen poll, believes passing smaller reform bills to address individual problems is a better strategy than passing a single bill that covers all aspects of health care reform. Kirk has consistently supported and drafted legislation for meaningful healthcare reforms that center on protecting patient rights and increased access to coverage for individuals and small business owners that will not cut Medicaid and increase government spending.
Conservative Veteran: sorry, but i don’t think of mark kirk as a conservative, so he’d hardly qualify (in my mind) using your definition. for me, the choice is between the consummate beltway insider (kirk) and someone who will take illinois values to congress [this comment was purposely designed to get responsa to spit out his coffee — rolling his eyes simply is not good enough!]…
REAL Anon, touche. Valid point, though I doubt most of those same voters could tell you how he actually votes on the issues important to them; just that they recognize his name.
—
10th Indy, You can give up that media-fed fallacy about “hiding” from town halls.
Did some Congressfolk not hold public, face-to-face town halls because ne’er do wells made it impossible to actually accomplish anything resembling a conversation? Sure.
But it wasn’t like the other 534 members of Congress (ie, everyone but Kirk) didn’t have town halls.
In most cases last August town halls went on as planned. And those that did cancel public meetings often went to online or tele-town halls instead.
PS - Kirk himself cancelled one town hall. He also listed, literally at the last possible moment, a different town hall (in Arlington Heights) and somehow anti-reformers knew about it well enough in advance to have been “pre-registered” ahead of pro-reformers.
PPS - it’s telling that you’re relying on a Republican (errr, I mean “Rasmussen”) poll to feed your weak talking points.
What is the difference between and “smaller reform bills to address individual problems” and “a single bill that covers all aspects of health care reform” anyway? If both actually accomplish the same thing there is no difference so I’d like to know what the Raz poll question actually was.
Finally, as for your canard that Kirk has somehow supported “meaningful healthcare reforms” I think you need to re-read the actual text of his bill.
Your claims on that front are off base as well since his bill has nothing to do with actually reforming our broken system of 60% annual rate increases and routine denials of coverage.
It does protect his multi-million dollar donors in the insurance industry, however, by reinforcing the unsustainable status quo in which Americans spend the most of any modern nation for healthcare coverage so poor it results in one of the lowest life-expectancy rates among that same group of industrialized nations.
OK OK
You guys think Kirk is the worse person in the entire world. We get it. The polls are all wrong, the Democrats are always right, and the Republicans are evil because they are so ignorant.
Got it. Repeatedly.
The fact that Kirk does anything at all over his entire career in Congress just reinforces your opinion that he is the worse person in the entire world. His electoral success only demonstrate to you that he is too evil to trust.
Your constant postings about how he is the worse person in the entire world and how you are always right about Kirk being the worse person in the entire world is just plain getting old.
Smell the smoke? That is a fire. Pretend it isn’t if you want. The rest of us are leaving the theater now. Keep enjoying yourselves! We’re all wrong….
Do you read anyone else’s comments? Who is calling Kirk a bad person? I don’t see that anywhere here. If you can’t defend your guy, that’s one thing. But please don’t malign others who comment to set the record straight about Kirk’s record if all you’re prepared to do is pout.
Hundreds of us had no problem finding the Kirk town halls this summer and thousands more participated in his teletown halls. I don’t remember being invited to one by Durbin or Burris either in person or on the phone.
The healthcare reforms he talked about then and since may not be the sweeping change you are looking for, but they are positive steps in the right direction.
The Rassmussen poll was the last senate poll - the one showing Giannoulias with a slim lead. Didn’t seem to bother you that it was a “republican” poll last week
Fan álainn… I’m off for a pint.
- The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 6:07 pm:
Rob, I think you’re seriously mistaken about, or mispresenting, what happened in Arlington Heights. The first Town Hall filled up very quickly and many were still waiting outside so he scheduled a second.
With regard to “pre-registration”: because of the number of folks who were there, ?the Village? were handing out pieces of paper to those who wanted to attend until they ran out of sheets, reflecting capacity was gone again.
I know because I didn’t get into the first, but was able to go to the second.
- The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 6:15 pm:
===
REAL Anon, touche.
===
lol I guess my fencing lessons and days from long ago are still paying off. Good investment after all.
Just checked on Google….turns out he’s Republican. Maybe he’ll even support the Republican candidate for Prez in 2012, too.
I still give over/under for Alexi’s senate race withdrawl as April 30. Maybe all the outraged D posters can shift their energy to coming up with the replacement candidate.
“While it’s always preferable for political discourse to be conducted in a respectful way, it’s not like the President himself gets hung up on such protocol. At the healthcare summit he referred to members of Congress exclusively by their first names. So I don’t see why he (or anyone else for that matter) should get too bothered by others referring to him in such a casual way on the stump.”
GOP there is one difference - he’s a former Naval Officer. While the President isn’t his “boss” anymore, he knows better on the respect issue.
Now since we only hear a small portion of this speech, I could give him he benefit of the doubt that he did refer to Pres. Obama by his proper name but it still isn’t right for him as a former military officer to speak about the President this way.
I’m not a huge fan of Kirk’s but he’s better than the alternative. However, he needs to watch what he says.
REAL Anon claims, “Rob, I think you’re seriously mistaken about, or mispresenting, what happened in Arlington Heights. The first Town Hall filled up very quickly and many were still waiting outside so he scheduled a second.”
REAL, I know I am not seriously mistaken about any of it. Do you know anyone else who tried to get in, arriving in the wee hours of the morning, only to be told the first meeting was already completely full … and then notice that many of the people who were let in to that first meeting just happened to be Kirk supporters?
I live and work right near to village hall so I was able to see the circus that day as well.
PS - You completely ignored Kirk’s own canceled event, originally scheduled to take place during the evening. That cancellation left several other constituents in a lurch since they work during the day and were not able to make last minute plans to be out of work during a weekday.
PPS - Let’s also get into what Mr. Kirk misrepresented during his speaking and slide show portion of the AH event… He offered no details re many of his data sources, which Progress Illinois and others have repeatedly pointed out appeared to be comparing apples and oranges and leaving out a great deal of context (as in comparing costs in California and New Jersey from completely different years).
How’s that for being “seriously mistaken” and “misrepresenting”?
- Will County Woman - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 11:36 pm:
Etiquette Please,
ok. i’m not necessarily defending kirk on any of this, but kirk was speaking at a private republican party event. i’m sure that had this been an official government related event on capitol hill for example, mark kirk would have afforded obama all due deference, and rightfully so. does place and context come into play at all here?
let’s face it the feigned outraged here and on the part of the white house is being racheted up for partisian/political reasons. i was no fan of george w. bush along with many other people. i can recall the time when ann richards, former gov or texas, referred to him as “shrub” in a public setting.
- The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Thursday, Mar 18, 10 @ 9:04 am:
10th Indy:
Since you were the one who raised the Town Halls on this thread–and sound as if you know more about the logistical details than I do–would you like to respond to Rob_N’s comments and questions?
- YoYo - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 8:26 am:
I don’t understand Giannoulias…is he saying once in the U.S. Senate he is going to propose a bill to create jobs to end the recession in the U.S.?
- bored now - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 8:29 am:
as i’ve said over and over, the choice in november will be between one candidate who will go to washington and support the president’s agenda of hope and change and one candidate who plays inside washington games, says one thing to partisans and another in advertising, but will stand with the washington republican leadership every single day helping to obstruct president obama. illinois deserves better than a lapdog for mitch mcconnell…
- Will County Woman - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 8:31 am:
The Cheryle Jackson story is interesting. I’m not sure what exactly to make of it on the heels of her failed U.S. Senate primary bid. I wonder who is in line to replace her at CUL?
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 8:31 am:
At this point, I don’t think Kirk gains anything from bringing Obama into the conversation. He beat his party’s right wing in the primary; they have nowhere to go. He should continue to the center.
He’s better off running against Alexi than Obama.
- just sayin' - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 8:33 am:
Hey, Mark Kirk prides himself on being an arrogant jerk.
- Brennan - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 8:47 am:
=the choice in november will be between one candidate who will go to washington and support the president’s agenda of hope and change=
Does this talking point work when the President has 59% of the votes in both chambers of the Congress?
It works in Illinois when it comes to Springfield, but does it work for Federal offices?
- HiFi - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 8:47 am:
This is Kirk’s career in a nutshell: Be an independent when you’re talking to independents, and toss red meat at the right-wingers when you think no one else is listening. He’s going to learn that’s a lot easier to do in a House race than in the spotlight of a nationally targeted statewide Senate contest.
- George - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 8:49 am:
It is the same thing over and over again from Kirk to the point that it is nearing comedy.
He keeps using these D.C. talking points that really carry no weight here. I know he has been out in D.C. a long time, but still - he has to have done some Illinois-based message polling, right?
I think we should start a pool on what talking point he will use next:
- Acorn?
- Death Panels?
- Birth Certificate?
- Passing health care reform without a vote?
- The nuclear option?
… its a bore.
- cassandra - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 8:52 am:
Mark Kirk is supposed to be running against Alexi, not Obama. And despite Alexi’s problems with Bright Start and the family bank, he is gonna have a really hard time beating him November. So why bring Obama into it.
Oh, you Republicans. Billions of dollars in campaign contributions flow through your party one way or another, and you can’t find somebody smart to run these campaigns? Maybe contributors should ask for their money back.
- E Pluribus - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 8:53 am:
Kirk is smarter that this.
His campaign needs an injection of focus and discipline or else Illinois will elect another unqualified, ethically challenged, empty suit.
- grand old partisan - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 8:56 am:
“And it’s not just Kirk’s language…” -
While it’s always preferable for political discourse to be conducted in a respectful way, it’s not like the President himself gets hung up on such protocol. At the healthcare summit he referred to members of Congress exclusively by their first names. So I don’t see why he (or anyone else for that matter) should get too bothered by others referring to him in such a casual way on the stump.
“illinois deserves better than a lapdog for mitch mcconnell” –
Oh, please! Any objective, reality based comparison would conclude that Mark Kirk is FAR more likely to be independent from his party’s leadership than Alexi would be from his. You think Alexi is going to vote differently than Durbin anything more than 0.0001% of the time?
- VanillaMan - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 9:01 am:
This is a pro-Obama state. There is a wave of anti-Obama feelings sweeping the US and it is getting worse for the President. Congress is flat-out hated by almost half the country. It has an approval rate that ranks with Rod Blagojevich’s.
At what point will Illinois follow suit? Kirk seems to be ahead of the curve politically, especially for Illinois. That doesn’t look good now, but will it look all that bad in seven months?
If Congress continues down the path it has been going over the past year, Illinois will eventually be swamped with the same intensity of anti-incumbant fever that is gripping the rest of the US.
Kirk is no dummy. There is a reason he is doing this. He didn’t survive Congressional elections making mistakes. He can’t be both “appeaser” and “instigator” and survive as he has. My bet is that Kirk has polling information that he is chasing across Illinois for a General Election win.
I predicted last year that this mid-term will be hard on the President, but right now it looks like he is going to be “slaughtered”, (pun intended) in a massive historic loss.
One term? Right now I cannot believe that a moderate Democrat hasn’t already stepped up and started opposing Obama and this humongous political disaster to save our party.
- Secret Square - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 9:02 am:
Maybe Obama is still more popular in Illinois than anywhere else, but don’t forget, there are still a lot of people in Illinois who DON’T approve of the direction in which he is taking this country. I’m guessing that a sizeable percentage of them are undecided about whether to vote for Kirk or just not vote for anyone in the Senate race. Obviously, Kirk needs their votes too.
Referring to the POTUS as “this guy” may be disrespectful, but to say he could be a one-term president is not an unreasonable or outlandish prediction to make at this point. Especially since Illinois alone doesn’t have nearly enough electoral votes to keep Obama in office.
- dupage dan - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 9:04 am:
PQ should use that slogan - hope and change. Like a rocket to the moon his campaign will take off.
- wizard - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 9:08 am:
bored now: so we want an obama lapdog instead?
- wndycty - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 9:17 am:
WCW Herman Brewer is believed to be in line to replace Cheryle at the Urban League. I know both personally and if it is Herman it will be an excellent choice. Herman has served as the acting head of the Urban League during Cheryle’s campaign and his performance in the capacity has been impressive.
- bored now - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 9:23 am:
brennan: sure. how many democrats and independents/swing voters do you think want to a elect a senator who’s sole purpose is to serve as another vote to obstruct our favorite son’s agenda?
grand old partisan: you make this two easy. i’ll forgive you for your lack of objectivity, but the facts are simple. alexi giannoulias stood up to one of the most withering assaults a political party has ever made against one of its candidates in a primary. there is no question that alexi has proven his political independence. in contrast, mark kirk has NEVER stood up to the republican leadership in the house on a whipped vote (although he has voted against his leadership WITH their permission). and mark kirk stood with the most reckless administration in my lifetime, declaring that he knew iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and using his status as a naval reserve intelligence officer to mute serious questions to the contrary. kirk has no history of political independence, as much as he likes the word. and if i have to choose between a supporter of george w. bush and barack obama, i’ll come down on the side of illinois’ own every single time.
wizard: senators from illinois should generally support our favorite son in the white house. our elected officials in washington should help president obama succeed, instead of obstructing his leadership and his desire to unite the country. i wouldn’t think that too much to ask of any serious politician in the state…
- jim - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 9:26 am:
“this guy” - oh, the horror
that’s the most despicable political rhetoric ever uttered in the history of the galaxy
- Brennan - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 9:31 am:
=how many democrats and independents/swing voters do you think want to a elect a senator who’s sole purpose is to serve as another vote to obstruct our favorite son’s agenda?=
53.1% of the voters in Massachusetts just did that. Maybe they were just sick of the Kennedy Seat. Maybe they already knew what a universal health insurance policy actually does to your state. Maybe they just like a guy in Carhart jackets in a pickup truck.
I don’t like Kirk’s comments. Their tacky. He doesn’t need them. He’s better off talking about his opponents that want to raise taxes on the middle class.
- VanillaMan - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 9:34 am:
Geez Bored Now, will you please can the “obstructionist” babble?
It makes you sound so ridiculous. Everyone knows that the reason Our Favorite Son is having problems is because he doesn’t have the support of his own party. With massive majorities in Congress, the reason for his failures right now is because of his own party.
So, please find another reason not to vote for Kirk and push that for a change.
- 10th Indy - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 9:41 am:
Kirk is running as an Independent Republican, not just an independent. It’s a strong position given the total democratic control in Illinois and Washington and the total mess in both. The progressive left’s attempts to paint him as a far-right goon at the same time the right-wing labels him a RINO, only serves to re-enforce that Kirk is who he says he is – a socially moderate, fiscal conservative who works across the aisle to get things done for the people he represents.
- 47th Ward - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 9:42 am:
===With massive majorities in Congress, the reason for his failures right now is because of his own party===
VM, where do you get your news? I seem to recall that health care reform legislation passed the House and the Senate. It’s going to pass again in the House this week.
Just because the GOP loudly exclaims that “the American people” have already rejected the bill, the fact remains that the House and Senate have approved two versions of it.
And Mark Kirk is a chamleon. He changes colors to blend in with his surroundings. It’s a survival skill that has kept in office, but the gag is getting old and he won’t be getting away with it this time.
Will the real Mark Kirk please stand up?
- Honest Abe - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 9:53 am:
Greg Hinz is a rabid partisan. I would never take any of his “advocacy journalism” seriously.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 9:56 am:
Hinz is not a rabid partisan of any sort. That’s just silly nonsense you’re spewing.
If you can’t prove it, please don’t insult our intelligence with goofiness like that. Thanks.
- Conservative Veteran - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 10:02 am:
Rep. Kirk isn’t a socially moderate, fiscal conservative. He’s socially liberal and fiscally moderate. His latest rating from Planned Parenthood is 100%, and his latest rating from Gun Owners of America is 0%. He ensured that the federal government spent at least $5 million, each, in his district, for Metra, HUD, Head Start, and local police departments. He voted for cap & trade.
- Brennan - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 10:08 am:
Conservative Veteran: Kirk is maybe a 50% now when PP scores the 111th term. He was a Yes on Stupak-Pitts. The following day NARAL went ballistic.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 10:09 am:
===He ensured that the federal government spent at least $5 million, each, in his district, for Metra, HUD, Head Start, and local police departments. ===
Oh, yeah, that’s so horrible. Money for transit, housing, education and coppers.
You’ve used that line a few times before. Time to come up with a new one.
- Will County Woman - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 10:20 am:
wndycty, win or lose was it cheryle’s intention not to return to cul after the primary? i never thought much of her politically, but by all appearences she did well at cul. then again i wonder if her deciding to run for the senate on whim was problematic to cul because some might have preferred she finish what she started and not been distracted by a u.s. senate run conisdering that she was a long-shot all along? additionally she ran a bad campaign, and it showed by the results she got.
- VanillaMan - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 10:35 am:
Thanks 47th for the nice steaming heap of bologna.
Yummy! Pass the Kool-Aid!
- 47th Ward - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 10:39 am:
So the health care reform legislation has not been approved by both the House and the Senate? I must be crazy.
You’re right VM, Obama is a complete failure and it’s all the fault of the Democrats.
- Bill - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 10:50 am:
===His latest rating from Planned Parenthood is 100%, and his latest rating from Gun Owners of America is 0%. He ensured that the federal government spent at least $5 million, each, in his district, for Metra, HUD, Head Start, and local police departments. He voted for cap & trade.===
Hey! maybe Kirk isn’t so bad after all.
- Responsa - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 10:57 am:
==senators from illinois should generally support our favorite son in the white house. our elected officials in washington should help president obama succeed instead of obstructing==
You crack me up, bored. I’m sure you will feel exactly the same way about “our elected officials” helping the President to succeed next time a person of the other party occupies the oval office! Or, with a Republican in the White House sometime down the road will you suddenly have an epiphany that Presidents are not always perfect and that their policies may justify some reasonable obstructing both from within and outside their party.
I would like to posit a more rational alternative to your pronouncement:
Senators from Illinois should always represent the interests of their constituents regardless of whomever is in the White House. (Hope you don’t mind that I added a few capital letters.)
- wizard - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 10:58 am:
bored now: no, senators from illinois should not automatically support the white house. support should be earned on the merits of the issue. that should be the case regardless of the party in the white house. one other note; the president may be your favored son, but he cetainly is not mine. that’s as inane as dallas calling the cowboys america’s team.
- The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 11:04 am:
===
…the choice in november will be between one candidate who will go to washington and support the president’s agenda of hope and change and one candidate who plays inside washington games…
===
bored, as NewsMax pointed out in December, Kirk has a reptutation for his “mild-mannered ability” to work with everyone, which makes him extremely popular in Congress on both sides of the aisle.
Therefore, it would seem that those calling him an “obstructionist” and worse (really…just sayin’!) seems to reflect more of a personal rather than popular opinion–and certainly not the opinion of those who work with him on a daily basis to get things done in DC.
- VanillaMan - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 11:08 am:
So the health care reform legislation has not been approved by both the House and the Senate? I must be crazy.
Check out CNN, crazy man! 11 Democrats have confirmed a “no” vote. No one knows when the headless chicken will land as it jumps around, but everyone sees that it hasn’t a head and no one believes it is really alive even though it still kicks.
- The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 11:10 am:
I’ll also add that there seem to be plenty of folks in DC who actually have a reputation for being “arrogant jerks” because the description fits based on their personality, or perhaps they’re very easy going folks but its a persona they don to meet their objectives.
Either way, very few who know–and work with–Kirk seem to agree that the term applies to him.
- The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 11:18 am:
Sorry for all the typos and grammatical errors (obviously need more coffee), but the point should be clear.
- Ben S. - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 11:18 am:
Has the AIP (the party George Wallace started to run for President in 1968) ever had a significant presence in Illinois like it does in California?
- 47th Ward - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 11:37 am:
VM, thanks for the name calling.
The House passed a health care reform bill last year. On Christmas Eve, the Senate passed a health care reform bill. Each of these bills represents an enormous legislative achievement by Obama and the Democrats. Bill Clinton didn’t even get his legislation approved in a single Congressional committee, and now Obama is on the brink of the most sweeping overhaul of our healthcare system since Lyndon Johnson’s Medicare program. That’s some definition of failure you have there.
Now, before you call me more names, go back and re-read what you posted earlier about the President’s failures being the fault of Democrats. You write some pretty stupid comments from time to time and I enjoy tearing those to shreds. Keep it up, I also have a lot of time.
And for Mark Kirk to campaign against Obama in Illinois, that’s like a gift for the Democrats. In tennis, they call that an unforced error. But by all means, keep insisting that health care is going to die and that Kirk will repeal it if it does. Bring it on, as someone famous once said.
- Rob N - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 11:45 am:
Vanilla says, “There is a wave of anti-Obama feelings sweeping the US and it is getting worse for the President.”
Really? Last I checked his polling had simply come down to normality from stratospheric. He’s polling better than Reagan at this point in a side-by-side comparison (ie, one year into their administration’s) and is light years ahead of George “We Don’t Miss You at All” Bush.
Vanilla also says, “Congress is flat-out hated by almost half the country.”
True, with House and Senate Republican caucuses polling far below their Dem counterparts.
And, as has been mentioned, the polling is even more stark (ie, more pro-Obama and pro-Dem) in Illinois than it is nationally.
Next time you refer to polling, do a little digging so as to get some context before making more pointless points.
- Rob N - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 11:50 am:
Con Vet says, “Rep. Kirk isn’t a socially moderate, fiscal conservative. He’s socially liberal and fiscally moderate. … He ensured that the federal government spent at least $5 million, each, in his district, for Metra, HUD, Head Start, and local police departments. He voted for cap & trade.”
And that’s just the problem with Kirk.
Conservatives don’t know if Moderate Mark will show up any more than indies and moderates know that Conservative Kirk will stay away.
He voted for cap and trade (for national security! no less) before saying he’d voted against it in the Senate.
He secured a bunch of multi-million dollar outlays all while getting on the House floor and 10th district podiums to complain about earmarks.
He voted for the Iraq War before voting against it (literally).
How can anyone know what he’ll do?
Even if he’s telling suburban teabaggers he’ll block the president’s agenda … how do they know he actually will since he’s already voted for part of it with cap and trade?
And even if his TV commercial says he’s independent … how do we know he won’t just block the president’s agenda along with the rest of the Party of No-Nothings like he says he will?
- The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 12:16 pm:
Rob, with all due respect, all of your rhetorical questions seem to be based–intentionally, I’d guess–on a very simplistic view of the world. And, I’m sure that you know what the reality is.
Items are intentionally bundled together into a Bill, which can change the way one would have voted on one issue because of the importance of another that was “slipped in”–sometimes even at the last minute.
Furthermore, Kirk has been representing his District for five terms now–which is a long time–and the demographics and “sentiment” surely must have changed at least once or twice during that time. If Kirk hadn’t changed his position on a few things, it would be an indication that he’s NOT listening and therefore is NOT representing the Constituents who live(d) there (at the time) well.
What guarantees does anyone have that Giannoulias won’t switch his positions on issues once he gets into office?
There’s a very solid argument that can be made FOR Kirk within the context of representation, and “adjustments” he’s made within the District based on the folks who have moved in and out of there during that period. He’s obviously been re-elected several times, so many voters must be pleased with what he’s doing.
- sucka free - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 12:22 pm:
Alexi will ignore the over used and re-tred arguments agains the bank.
Instead he will continue to cast this election as a choice between a supporter of Pres Obama, and a supporter of Pres Bush. If he can get that narrative to take hold, he wins easily. Kirk plays right into his hands with a comment like this.
Regardless, Kirk is going to have a real hard time running from his record of support for Pres Bush by hiding behind a couple “independent” votes. Expecially when he votes against the Jobs bill, the Health Care bill, and soon to come Climate Change bill. All very popular in Illinois.
- bored now - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 12:23 pm:
Brennan: you’re right, 53.1% of the voters in a massachusetts special election did just that. but we aren’t talking about a president kerry, and we aren’t talking about a special election.
VM: i missed where i called kirk an “obstructionist.” feel free to point out where i did. instead, i noted a curious reality about mark kirk. he’s never shown himself to stand up to his party (without their permission, of course) and he’s asking to be elected to mitch mcconnell’s caucus, which has a narrowly-focused agenda: to deny the president any victory, any form thereof, any time. given kirk’s history of sucking up to the slimmiest of politicians that this nation has had to offer in the last decade, it’s hard to argue that he’s going to stand up to mitch mcconnell or act independently of the conservative republican caucus in the senate.
10th Indy: kirk uses the label of independent, but he has no real history of independence. i merely repeat the question again: name a time when he’s gone against his leadership in the house ON A WHIPPED VOTE without their permission to do so. in contrast, alexis giannoulias demonstrated his political independence the moment he got into the race for state treasurer. he has the scars to prove it.
Responsa: i’ll just take your comment for a bit of ignorance about my past. which is ok. but, yeah, i’d argue the same thing for, say, texas senators when the bush’s occupied the white house or for california senators when reagan did. when supporting their favorite sons in the white house they ARE representing the interests of their constituents. (you’ll notice that i used capital letters here).
wizard: i didn’t exactly say that senators from illinois should automatically support the white house. i said: “senators from illinois should generally support our favorite son in the white house. our elected officials in washington should help president obama succeed, instead of obstructing his leadership and his desire to unite the country. i wouldn’t think that too much to ask of any serious politician in the state.” i don’t know if you’ve noticed, but dallas does market the cowboys as “america’s team.” whether or not you choose to support your state and our political interests is really up to you. this is, after all, america.
The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous: i’m not arguing that mark kirk isn’t a nice guy. i’m saying that he is the consummate beltway insider who knows how to survive. as such, we can have no expectation that he will actually be an independent voice inside the conservative senate republican caucus, but that he will fall in line to mitch mcconnell’s
“obstructionist” strategy (to use the words of my friend, vanillaman). having said that, you and i must talk to different people in d.c. you have a higher opinion of kirk than the people i know there!
- The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 12:37 pm:
Rob, if he doesn’t survive, then he can’t fight–on our behalf–the next day.
And, that obviously applies to everyone in office.
- The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 12:39 pm:
Mea culpa. That last one should have been addressed to bored.
Coffee!!!!
- bored now - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 1:03 pm:
i’m not begrudging kirk’s survival skills. nothing wrong with that. i’m merely observing that he can’t very well argue that he’s independent given the current leadership of senate republicans. i certainly wouldn’t want to be mark kirk in this environment. he represents the current, broken-down political system in washington. alexis giannoulias wants to join barack obama in fixing washington and turning this country around…
- The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 1:06 pm:
(Catching up. Seems everyone decided to run out for coffee at the same time. lol)
- 10th Indy - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 1:15 pm:
Kirk’s independence is backed up by his voting record. National Journal and CQ review his voting record and consistently put him in the center of the house.
- The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 1:27 pm:
I’m not being rude, bored, but I honestly don’t know how to respond to that last one. Based on my previous statements, it should be obvious that I don’t agree that Kirk “represents the current, broken-down political system in washington” because I believe he’s doing–and has been doing–a great job representing a HIGHLY complex District. That track record indicates that he’s therefore in a position to represent the entire State (and our Country) very well once he’s elected to the Senate.
And with regard to Giannoulias’ “turning this country around” with our President, that would depend alot I suppose on the direction one believes we should be taking. Since you’re approaching this at a very general level, I will, too.
Quite honestly, I have some concerns that both R Moderates and Conservatives seem to share on the issues we all have in common. And, it’s KIRK’s background, knowledge, and experience that put HIM in a very unique position to turn that around for us.
- Responsa - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 1:31 pm:
==Responsa: i’ll just take your comment for a bit of ignorance about my past. which is ok.==
Gee, bored, that sounded a lot like one of those “don’t you know who I am?” statements. If you are someone “important” with a “past” that we should all be aware of then you’ll have to excuse me. Because I, at least, have no idea who you are. I just basically take your regular comments and retorts on this blog at face value–and at face value a great deal of the time they are eye rollers.
- The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 1:51 pm:
Responsa, bored might have been referring to his “tenure” on CapFax and therefore other bloggers’ familiarity with where he stands on issues, etc.
- bored now - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 1:52 pm:
Responsa: sorry, no one important. just someone who spent my time on the “other side of the aisle” before i came to this blog (or, to be accurate, before 2003). that’s no secret…
- The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 1:56 pm:
You’re underestimating your contribution, bored, to keeping some good debates going…for whatever reasons you may have.
- Conservative Veteran - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 2:22 pm:
Bored now, if Alexi wins, he probably wouldn’t “turn the country around.” We have democrat president, and both houses of Congress are controlled by Democrats. If you want to elect someone who will change Congress, you’ll elect conservatives.
- Rob N - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 2:22 pm:
REAL Anon,
Perhaps you ought to look into polling on what the 10th district does and ask why Rep. Kirk has voted contra to those positions in the House.
For instance, his flip on voting against Iraq only came after Seals gave him a scare in their first match-up, not because the 10th’s constituents suddenly went negative on Bush’s war.
In fact, his weak “just votin’ my district” canard also doesn’t match up with his record. The 10th (and the state as a whole) has consistently supported Pres. Obama’s efforts to reform health care (pinkocommienazisocialistafricanwitchdoctor government takeover of death panels and all) yet Kirk has consistently opposed it, both as a Representative (distinctly not representing the will of his district) and in his position statements as a Senate candidate (again, distinctly not representing the will of our state).
Please explain how my “simplistic” views somehow do not match this reality?
Kirk himself can’t explain from one audience to the next where he actually stands on the issues of the day (excuse me, his “adjustments”), let alone his votes on Capitol Hill.
Nor, clearly, can you.
- The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 2:36 pm:
===
Please explain how my “simplistic” views somehow do not match this reality?
===
A “simplistic” answer: He keeps getting re-elected by Voters regardless of what a particular poll might say–perhaps indicating that polls are not the only source one should consider in making decisions.
- 10th Indy - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 2:43 pm:
Kirk was one of the few elected officials of either party to hold town hall meetings on health care this summer when others were in hiding. He, along with the majority of the state according to the latest Rasmussen poll, believes passing smaller reform bills to address individual problems is a better strategy than passing a single bill that covers all aspects of health care reform. Kirk has consistently supported and drafted legislation for meaningful healthcare reforms that center on protecting patient rights and increased access to coverage for individuals and small business owners that will not cut Medicaid and increase government spending.
- bored now - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 2:51 pm:
Conservative Veteran: sorry, but i don’t think of mark kirk as a conservative, so he’d hardly qualify (in my mind) using your definition. for me, the choice is between the consummate beltway insider (kirk) and someone who will take illinois values to congress [this comment was purposely designed to get responsa to spit out his coffee — rolling his eyes simply is not good enough!]…
- Rob N - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 3:26 pm:
REAL Anon, touche. Valid point, though I doubt most of those same voters could tell you how he actually votes on the issues important to them; just that they recognize his name.
—
10th Indy, You can give up that media-fed fallacy about “hiding” from town halls.
Did some Congressfolk not hold public, face-to-face town halls because ne’er do wells made it impossible to actually accomplish anything resembling a conversation? Sure.
But it wasn’t like the other 534 members of Congress (ie, everyone but Kirk) didn’t have town halls.
In most cases last August town halls went on as planned. And those that did cancel public meetings often went to online or tele-town halls instead.
PS - Kirk himself cancelled one town hall. He also listed, literally at the last possible moment, a different town hall (in Arlington Heights) and somehow anti-reformers knew about it well enough in advance to have been “pre-registered” ahead of pro-reformers.
PPS - it’s telling that you’re relying on a Republican (errr, I mean “Rasmussen”) poll to feed your weak talking points.
What is the difference between and “smaller reform bills to address individual problems” and “a single bill that covers all aspects of health care reform” anyway? If both actually accomplish the same thing there is no difference so I’d like to know what the Raz poll question actually was.
Finally, as for your canard that Kirk has somehow supported “meaningful healthcare reforms” I think you need to re-read the actual text of his bill.
Your claims on that front are off base as well since his bill has nothing to do with actually reforming our broken system of 60% annual rate increases and routine denials of coverage.
It does protect his multi-million dollar donors in the insurance industry, however, by reinforcing the unsustainable status quo in which Americans spend the most of any modern nation for healthcare coverage so poor it results in one of the lowest life-expectancy rates among that same group of industrialized nations.
- VanillaMan - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 3:30 pm:
OK OK
You guys think Kirk is the worse person in the entire world. We get it. The polls are all wrong, the Democrats are always right, and the Republicans are evil because they are so ignorant.
Got it. Repeatedly.
The fact that Kirk does anything at all over his entire career in Congress just reinforces your opinion that he is the worse person in the entire world. His electoral success only demonstrate to you that he is too evil to trust.
Your constant postings about how he is the worse person in the entire world and how you are always right about Kirk being the worse person in the entire world is just plain getting old.
Smell the smoke? That is a fire. Pretend it isn’t if you want. The rest of us are leaving the theater now. Keep enjoying yourselves! We’re all wrong….
- 47th Ward - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 3:38 pm:
VM,
Do you read anyone else’s comments? Who is calling Kirk a bad person? I don’t see that anywhere here. If you can’t defend your guy, that’s one thing. But please don’t malign others who comment to set the record straight about Kirk’s record if all you’re prepared to do is pout.
PS: it is “worst” person in the world, not worse.
- 10th Indy - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 4:28 pm:
Rob -
Hundreds of us had no problem finding the Kirk town halls this summer and thousands more participated in his teletown halls. I don’t remember being invited to one by Durbin or Burris either in person or on the phone.
The healthcare reforms he talked about then and since may not be the sweeping change you are looking for, but they are positive steps in the right direction.
The Rassmussen poll was the last senate poll - the one showing Giannoulias with a slim lead. Didn’t seem to bother you that it was a “republican” poll last week
Fan álainn… I’m off for a pint.
- The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 6:07 pm:
Rob, I think you’re seriously mistaken about, or mispresenting, what happened in Arlington Heights. The first Town Hall filled up very quickly and many were still waiting outside so he scheduled a second.
With regard to “pre-registration”: because of the number of folks who were there, ?the Village? were handing out pieces of paper to those who wanted to attend until they ran out of sheets, reflecting capacity was gone again.
I know because I didn’t get into the first, but was able to go to the second.
- The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 6:15 pm:
===
REAL Anon, touche.
===
lol I guess my fencing lessons and days from long ago are still paying off. Good investment after all.
- dumb - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 6:15 pm:
Kirk may be out of Washington (January, 2011) before Obama (January, 2013)
- Park - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 7:39 pm:
Geez. Bit of an inflammatory topic, eh?
Just checked on Google….turns out he’s Republican. Maybe he’ll even support the Republican candidate for Prez in 2012, too.
I still give over/under for Alexi’s senate race withdrawl as April 30. Maybe all the outraged D posters can shift their energy to coming up with the replacement candidate.
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 7:53 pm:
===
Maybe he’ll even support the Republican candidate for Prez in 2012, too.
===
Or, maybe even be on the ticket? Now THAT would be an Illinois “twofer” the whole Country would be talking about for quite some time. lol
- The REAL Anonymous...fka Anonymous - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 7:54 pm:
Sorry. That was me.
- Etiquette Please... - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 8:48 pm:
“While it’s always preferable for political discourse to be conducted in a respectful way, it’s not like the President himself gets hung up on such protocol. At the healthcare summit he referred to members of Congress exclusively by their first names. So I don’t see why he (or anyone else for that matter) should get too bothered by others referring to him in such a casual way on the stump.”
GOP there is one difference - he’s a former Naval Officer. While the President isn’t his “boss” anymore, he knows better on the respect issue.
Now since we only hear a small portion of this speech, I could give him he benefit of the doubt that he did refer to Pres. Obama by his proper name but it still isn’t right for him as a former military officer to speak about the President this way.
I’m not a huge fan of Kirk’s but he’s better than the alternative. However, he needs to watch what he says.
- Etiquette Please... - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 8:49 pm:
Or how he says it.
- Rob_N - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 9:06 pm:
REAL Anon claims, “Rob, I think you’re seriously mistaken about, or mispresenting, what happened in Arlington Heights. The first Town Hall filled up very quickly and many were still waiting outside so he scheduled a second.”
REAL, I know I am not seriously mistaken about any of it. Do you know anyone else who tried to get in, arriving in the wee hours of the morning, only to be told the first meeting was already completely full … and then notice that many of the people who were let in to that first meeting just happened to be Kirk supporters?
I live and work right near to village hall so I was able to see the circus that day as well.
PS - You completely ignored Kirk’s own canceled event, originally scheduled to take place during the evening. That cancellation left several other constituents in a lurch since they work during the day and were not able to make last minute plans to be out of work during a weekday.
PPS - Let’s also get into what Mr. Kirk misrepresented during his speaking and slide show portion of the AH event… He offered no details re many of his data sources, which Progress Illinois and others have repeatedly pointed out appeared to be comparing apples and oranges and leaving out a great deal of context (as in comparing costs in California and New Jersey from completely different years).
How’s that for being “seriously mistaken” and “misrepresenting”?
Addl Sources: HuffPo and PI
- Will County Woman - Wednesday, Mar 17, 10 @ 11:36 pm:
Etiquette Please,
ok. i’m not necessarily defending kirk on any of this, but kirk was speaking at a private republican party event. i’m sure that had this been an official government related event on capitol hill for example, mark kirk would have afforded obama all due deference, and rightfully so. does place and context come into play at all here?
let’s face it the feigned outraged here and on the part of the white house is being racheted up for partisian/political reasons. i was no fan of george w. bush along with many other people. i can recall the time when ann richards, former gov or texas, referred to him as “shrub” in a public setting.
- The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Thursday, Mar 18, 10 @ 9:04 am:
10th Indy:
Since you were the one who raised the Town Halls on this thread–and sound as if you know more about the logistical details than I do–would you like to respond to Rob_N’s comments and questions?