Kirk’s woes continue
Thursday, Jun 10, 2010 - Posted by Rich Miller
* The Sun-Times picks up on the Mark Kirk “partisan political activity” story…
In yet another embarrassing revelation for GOP Senate candidate Mark Kirk, a document from the Department of Defense has surfaced showing military officials expressed “concerns arising from his partisan political activities during his last two tours of active duty.”
Kirk, a commander in the U.S. Navy reserves, needed a “waiver” to become — in his words — the first congressman to be deployed to an “imminent danger” area since World War II when he was deployed to Afghanistan in 2008 and again last year.
Because of the officials’ concerns about his previous “partisan political activities,” they required him to write out an “acknowledgement of limitations required for all candidates on active duty,” which he did. The waiver was granted. […]
The Kirk campaign issued a statement Wednesday night asserting that Kirk never violated any Defense Department rules, and vowing to find out what “political operatives” gained access to his “confidential records.” […]
Kirk’s statement said the Obama administration changed the original language of the waiver, inserting concerns about his “partisan political activities.”
The AP hasn’t yet picked it up. Instead, they’re still running that “balancing” story about how an item on Alexi Giannoulias’ campaign website didn’t match with a factual item on his state website.
* The Tribune’s Steven Chapman has a devastating column on Kirk’s problems…
The congressman has never been one to minimize his talents. Once, in a candidate debate, he responded to a question about immigration reform by announcing grandly, “I could answer that question in Spanish, since I attended Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico.” Kirk finds himself amazing and expects you to agree. […]
Kirk was notable for avoiding any hint of ethical scandal, but his very distance from the usual muck may have led him astray. He was not satisfied being smarter and better than your run-of-the-mill Illinois politician. He had to make himself out to be a combination of Superman and Beaver Cleaver.
But voters are not expecting greatness or nobility from their senator. They only ask the political gods to send someone who isn’t an embarrassment.
The political gods have given their answer to that prayer: Ha. Ha. Ha.
Oof.
* Lake Zurich Courier columnist Randy Blaser also lays into Kirk…
Over the last 10 years, I’ve heard Mark Kirk talk about his service in the Navy many times, and he always left me with the impression that he was in the thick of things, flying dangerous missions at the point of the spear.
Apparently, he wasn’t.
I can’t say it any better than my teenage son, who thinks about serving his country one day in uniform. “He’s either a liar or an idiot,” he said after reading the Kirk revelations, “and they don’t let idiots be officers in the U.S. Navy.”
Let me add, however, that both sure find a home in the U.S. Congress.
* The Pantagraph piles on…
There is something particularly unsavory about embellishing one’s military record as opposed to, say, claiming to have been the third-grade spelling bee champ. It is an insult to those who have served in the military and been in harm’s way.
What makes politicians think they won’t get caught in such misstatements? What makes them think voters aren’t entitled to the pure, unvarnished truth?
* Last July, I heaped mountains of praise on Kirk’s official campaign kickoff, saying it “couldn’t have been better.” At one point in the post, I wrote that his handling of the cap and trade issue was “first class.” Little did I know. Here is that Kirk response, which is from a Chuck Sweeny column…
Kirk told me Monday he has been inundated with e-mails from Republicans unhappy with his cap-and-trade vote. So, why did he vote yes?
“We’ve sent three armies to the Middle East and I’ve fought in two of them. As combat veterans, we get to ask, ‘Are we going to still being doing this 20 years from now?’ So I’ve been in favor of anything that gets us to energy independence,” said Kirk, an intelligence commander in the Naval Reserve who was deployed in December to Afghanistan.
He “fought” in two armies in the Middle East? Man, were we ever snookered.
* Also worth reading…
* Kirk Lashes Out, Once Again: So how did the Kirk campaign respond? You guessed it: They again attempted to deflect attention on to his Democratic opponents.
- Carl Nyberg - Thursday, Jun 10, 10 @ 11:22 am:
When Giannoulias was getting beaten with Broadway Bank stories did the media feel obligated to run balancing stories on Kirk?
- CircularFiringSquad - Thursday, Jun 10, 10 @ 11:28 am:
Capt Fax:
na na na na na na!
We told the CommandoKirk Was F.A.K.E.R. years ago, but you failed to listen. You media types find a semi-moderate GOPer and fall in love.
Yuck.
We understand the need to pretend to balance, but come on. This guy is so light that he misses the featherweight class.
Folks can not like Lexi, but let’s not rush to the CommandoKirk
Fire. Aim. Ready!
Have a great weekend
- well - Thursday, Jun 10, 10 @ 11:28 am:
Yeah, you’re reading them now, Carl
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Jun 10, 10 @ 11:33 am:
At some point, military-wise, you retreat, regroup, and recommit …
Sadly, I don’t see, “For the love of all that is holy, stop lying!” in that philosophy. When Kirk faces those editorial boards, Kirk HAD an upper hand against Alexi with his squeaky-clean image as opposed to “the banker”, Now … well … Every time he thinks his parsing his words is working, the more phony his is becoming.
I was at a BBQ last weekend … and the word to describe Kirk was … Caricature… not real, phony image, no substance. One vet, a surgeon/Lt.Colonel who was in Afganistan less than 2 years ago, made his position quite clear.
“If Kirk feels the need to lie about the ‘egg salad’ on his uniform, I don’t need to know much more about him.”
Ouch.
- George - Thursday, Jun 10, 10 @ 11:39 am:
That seems to be the most damning one yet.
- the Patriot - Thursday, Jun 10, 10 @ 11:40 am:
I am no fan of Kirk, but changing around releasae forms and DOD concerns over partisan politics has Rahm written all over it. Generally the DOD takes care of this stuff in house and a commander would have had a sit down at the point the concern was raised. An after the fact concern is a political manuever.
- "Clerks" fan - Thursday, Jun 10, 10 @ 11:40 am:
…. some advice for Alexi. Keep your head down and stay away from the press. Let Kirk handle all of your follow up on this issue. He is doing a heck of a job as YOUR press secretary.
- Honest Abe - Thursday, Jun 10, 10 @ 11:53 am:
From the snarky tone of the post, one would almost think that Mark Kirk lobbied the Congress for a medal for himself for flying over a battlefield in an airplane. Oops, that was Lyndon B. Johnson (D-Texas).
- Team Sleep - Thursday, Jun 10, 10 @ 11:55 am:
I like Kirk a lot and am an avid Kirk supporter, but his reasoning for the cap-and-trade vote is even much different than what he has told me and other groups which have heard him speak.
- VanillaMan - Thursday, Jun 10, 10 @ 11:57 am:
1. Veteran > Politician (Eisenhower - 1952, Grant - 1868, Jackson - 1826, Washington - 1789, McCain - 1982)
2. Veteran-Politician > Politician (Logan, Kerry, Sestak)
3. Bloviating Veteran-Politician > Politician (Kirk, Harkin, Pierce - 1852)
4. Phoney Veteran-Politician > Politician (Blumental, Quayle, Hare)
As you can see, voters support veterans over politicians. It has been this way for over 200 years. That is why politicians who are not veterans do whatever they can to nullify this advantage. What we have seen with Jackson, Kerry, McCain, Blumental, Harkin and Kirk is how this is done.
We also see that this doesn’t work.
Voters seems to be instinctively supportive of veterans. So, political challenges brought up during a campaign regarding a veteran’s record does not change this. Veterans can be challenged as politicians, but it seems that veterans cannot be challenged as veterans, even in extreme cases. Charges of AWOL have been made against veterans running for public office, as recently as against the Bush 2000 and Bush 2004 campaigns.
This holds true even when considering parties.
Now, if the Giannoulais campaign wishes to attack Kirk on another issue besides his veteran record, a show a pattern, then perhaps this can change the November outcome. However, these new charges are once again, against Kirk’s veteran record. So, while these recent event may delight Democrats, they have to follow up with new charges that are not veteran war record-related to have an effect.
So, these new charges will not be as effective as when this issue first arose in changing voter’s minds at this time.
- cassandra - Thursday, Jun 10, 10 @ 11:57 am:
We already knew we Illinois voters have a Hobson’s choice for governor in November.
Now it appears that we have a Hobson’s choice for Obama’s former Senate seat as well.
- Team America - Thursday, Jun 10, 10 @ 12:00 pm:
=== When Giannoulias was getting beaten with Broadway Bank stories did the media feel obligated to run balancing stories on Kirk? ===
Carl, you have a short memory. Did you forget that it got so bad for Alexi that Channel 2 said it would not even cover the race until Kirk laid off Alexi?
http://www.examiner.com/x-40779-Chicago-Conservative-Issues-Examiner~y2010m5d6-Groundbreaking-Illinois-school-choice-bill-poised-for-final-vote
- Vole - Thursday, Jun 10, 10 @ 12:04 pm:
A diagnosis of his personality is in order. There does seem to be an established pattern. Why did he inject his own “deeds” into an otherwise sound argument like he did on justifying his vote on Cap and Trade? What was the objective? To make policy or to build his own standing? This could be asked of many and perhaps most politicians, but Kirk forces us to ask the question.
- Excessively Rabid - Thursday, Jun 10, 10 @ 12:11 pm:
Vole - what, do you think someone with mental problems could succeed in public life in Illinois? (Answer: it helps)(snark out)
- Old Shepherd - Thursday, Jun 10, 10 @ 12:12 pm:
“Voters seems to be instinctively supportive of veterans. So, political challenges brought up during a campaign regarding a veteran’s record does not change this.”
Wouldn’t you consider the “Swiftboating” of John Kerry a successful political challenge of a veteran’s record?
- shore - Thursday, Jun 10, 10 @ 12:22 pm:
the difference between kirk and alexi is that broadway bank was alexi’s entire resume. he had nothing else in the way that plummer’s family business is his WHOLE resume.
kirk did still serve even if there were some missstatements, has still been a congressman and still has a better knowledge of the issues. In essence alexi’s mess was a lot worse because it was his whole campaign, kirk has a lot of other stuff and if you look at the fitness reports, did still have a very well regarded tenure in the navy.
- Ghost - Thursday, Jun 10, 10 @ 12:22 pm:
VM,
so you can swift boat attack a veteran out of a race?
Voters care, voters are more incensed by veterans who emblish records to place themselves from the sidelines into combat etc. The polls have been moving dwn for Kirk, and as this probem for him grows so will his loss of votes
- shore - Thursday, Jun 10, 10 @ 12:24 pm:
In 11 years I don’t remember a single kirk intnernal leak which perhaps in a conspiracy theory might lead me to believe that the night the blackhawks win the cup, lon monk goes on trial it’s interesting this memo just so happens to get into the press. Not saying team kirk would dump this but its better now than 2 weeks from now.
- Ghost - Thursday, Jun 10, 10 @ 12:38 pm:
Can’t*
- FillB - Thursday, Jun 10, 10 @ 12:42 pm:
Two thoughts, VM:
1. If a politician runs on their military record (or even if they don’t), it’s fair game. Running for office is a choice. If the voters care, it will bear fruit.
2a. Kirk’s military record –or “record, as it were– is so intertwined into his campaign and official persona, it would be hard to criticize one and not the other.
2b. But how about his consistently wrong foreign policy positions, supposedly his “strength”. Or his whiplash-inducing changes of position. Or his spineless ideology. All that is in play. And it all ties together: lies about his military record, takes his position based on whichever voters he’s trying to woo, spreads BS about foreign policy…you can’t believe a word he says. If he tells you you’re on fire, you may as well wait to smell the smoke before you panic.
- Rob_N - Thursday, Jun 10, 10 @ 12:44 pm:
Team says, “Carl, you have a short memory. Did you forget that it got so bad for Alexi that Channel 2 said it would not even cover the race until Kirk laid off Alexi?”
Team, you (and your fellow cons) have a problem understanding the English language.
WBBM-TV said they weren’t going to cover Kirk’s spin on Broadway since there are so many other important topics to discuss. They then asked Kirk to discuss some of those topics
For some reason, asking Mark Kirk “What is your campaign going forward? What are the issues that you are going to tell the voters why they should vote for you?” made conservatives went ballistic.
Essentially, it was a case of a journalist actually doing their job and asking a candidate about other issues in the news.
How convenient that you’ve found a single conservative columnist complaining about “liberal” media on a “newspaper” website (Examiner News) owned by a wealthy conservative fellow (Anschultz). Good for you. Didn’t Phil Anschultz own the Fire soccer team too?
Here’s what WBBM-TV actually said, instead of the words Team falsely put in their mouth:
“Marshall: “Channel 2’s made a decision. We’re really not going to cover the Senate race if it consistently, only in your terms, is about Broadway Bank. The bank’s been taken over by the government, Alexi’s been pilloried. Tell me: what is your campaign going forward? What are the issues that you are going to tell the voters why they should vote for you?”
- Anonymous - Thursday, Jun 10, 10 @ 12:47 pm:
At least Kirk’s got the decency to admit when he messed up, which is far more than we can say for most politicians who keep living in denial,
While he didn’t literally fight, he was doing more to directly help our troops than most politicians would ever consider, not to mention taking far more personal risk.
- VanillaMan - Thursday, Jun 10, 10 @ 12:51 pm:
Wouldn’t you consider the “Swiftboating” of John Kerry a successful political challenge of a veteran’s record?
No. Kerry didn’t lose because of Swiftboating, he lost because of how he responded to it. Look at the polls. The Swiftboaters attack coincided with the traditional evaporation of post-convention bounce. Then Kerry’s numbers stayed right there until the election.
A better counter would be Duckworth. I don’t know why she lost. She had it all. She now has even more and should easily win if she decides to try again.
- VanillaMan - Thursday, Jun 10, 10 @ 1:01 pm:
One of the things I’ve noticed about veterans who run for office is the generational thing with Vietnam. Is this why Boomers are so cynical regarding veterans? Did we enter a new phase after Vietnam regarding veterans running for office? Today’s veterans running for office sure seem to be beaten up a lot more today, than in generations past.
Before Vietnam, veterans were sancrosanct. Politicians attacked them when they ran for office, but not on their military record. Perhaps it is partly due to the fact that more citizens had experiences with fighting a war than they do today and understand what it took, and admired those qualities within public officials.
Af-Pak is the longest US war in history. Have you ever read anything that took you to it’s front and explained what was happening there on an intimate level with the soldiers there? Can you imagine just how ridiculous we would see opinionators back during WWII, if they were as poorly cognisant of the War, as we are with Af-Pak?
I have even heard comments from opinionators claiming that they knew more about the war than the soldiers fighting it. How foolish does that sound? How could knowing the politics of a war ever replace knowing what it is like to wonder if you would be killed at any moment during that war?
Honestly, sometimes I think we take politics too seriously and do not prioritize it within what is real. A veteran knows. Politicans do not.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Jun 10, 10 @ 1:03 pm:
–“We’ve sent three armies to the Middle East and I’ve fought in two of them. As combat veterans, we get to ask, ‘Are we going to still being doing this 20 years from now?”–
That’s it, game over. He didn’t fight anybody, anywhere, ever. I have friends whose kids have done three, four, five hitches of six months to a year in combat positions in Iraq and Afghanistan. This guy has no right pretending to be them, or that he’s shared their real sacrifice.
I won’t vote for Kirk because of this stuff, and I won’t vote for Alexi because there’s no reason to, bank or no bank.
Who’s the Greenie, anyway?
- Fed Up - Thursday, Jun 10, 10 @ 1:36 pm:
I can’t vote for Kirk because of his gratuitous lies. I can’t vote for Giannoulias because he has been less than forthcoming about his past role in the family banking business (i.e. lying by omission). Wordslinger I’m with you - who is the Greenie?
- just sayin' - Thursday, Jun 10, 10 @ 1:40 pm:
Kirk and his selfishness are destroying the good opportunity Republicans had in Illinois this year.
Lots of Republicans are just going to stay home, and Democrats have every reason now to hold their nose and stick with Alexi.
Pat Quinn thanks you too Mark.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Jun 10, 10 @ 1:41 pm:
“Friends whose kids have served” is hardly credible unless we hear directly from them, not somebody who apparently has never served. Of course, looking for the Greenie suggests a bias, as would looking for a libertarian.
Why not look for a Main Street moderate, who will stop the piracy of individual citizens to line the pockets of Wall Street corporations and Washington bureaucrats working together?
- Team America - Thursday, Jun 10, 10 @ 1:44 pm:
Rob_N: Spin, spin, spin. Interesting that you have a problem with me citing conservative sources but Progress Illinois (literally bought and paid for by SEIU) doesn’t ruffle you when Rich links to it.
BTW, your quoting of the exact words of the reporter doesn’t impress me at all - to me, it says exactly the same thing. He simply didn’t want to hear any more bad news about Alexi, and he got called on it. Boo hoo.
- Old Shepherd - Thursday, Jun 10, 10 @ 1:51 pm:
“No. Kerry didn’t lose because of Swiftboating, he lost because of how he responded to it.”
Isn’t that like saying that the earthquake didn’t destroy my house…it was the shaking that did it?
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Thursday, Jun 10, 10 @ 2:26 pm:
Vanillaman -
Veterans are generally preferred over “politicians” because of their presumed trustworthiness and commitment to public service.
Mark Kirk has proven himself untrustworthy and self-serving.
He’s taken his single biggest asset (since he can’t run on his voting record) and turned it into one of his biggest liabilities all by himself. That takes some doing.
- Rob_N - Thursday, Jun 10, 10 @ 2:33 pm:
Wah wah wah, Team.
Rich links to sources from both sides (and more) as you well know.
Unfortunately it’s you that has a problem sticking to what people actually say and instead run around putting words in their mouths like a lawyer flailing your arms with an ambulance to chase.
Heck, you did the same thing to Rich the other day on your own blog — claiming he said something he never said about your main man, Kirk.
And you’re still missing the key point to what WBBM-TV said.
Yes, they did NOT say they were going to stop covering Broadway news …. They said they were going to stop covering it “in Kirk’s terms”.
Boo hoo. A reporter was going to stop regurgitating your candidate’s talking points.
That’s what you’re here for, Team. Swallow Kirk’s spin and spit it back up for us.
But, what you and your fellow parrots ALWAYS skip is that then the same reporter specifically gave your candidate an open mic to talk about ANY OTHER topic he wanted to talk about.
Kirk then talked about his stalled small business legislation, which WBBM-TV covered.
(Say, why is it that Kirk’s legislative proposals never go anywhere? Even when the GOP ran the Hill his stuff gathered dust.)
- 10th Indy - Thursday, Jun 10, 10 @ 2:40 pm:
Veterans are generally preferred over politicians because they make sacrifices for our country that most of us dont.
- VanillaMan - Thursday, Jun 10, 10 @ 2:41 pm:
Mark Kirk has proven himself untrustworthy and self-serving.
Yeah - but I’m thinking that as a vet, he still gets the edge as well as the benefit of the doubts by voters.
Giannoulais has to go after him on other issues than this.
- Rob_N - Thursday, Jun 10, 10 @ 2:44 pm:
But VM, “as a vet” is exactly where Kirk is proving himself untrustworthy and self-serving.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Jun 10, 10 @ 2:44 pm:
===Heck, you did the same thing to Rich the other day on your own blog — claiming he said something he never said about your main man, Kirk.===
Tattletale. lol
But, um, as long as we’re on the subject, what did you say, Team?
- BigTwich - Thursday, Jun 10, 10 @ 3:02 pm:
“Is this why Boomers are so cynical regarding veterans?”
We are cynical because instead of Marshall and Eisenhower we had a bunch of idiots in command without a worthwhile purpose. Kirk is clearly descended from the idiots.
Sp4/E4 AUS 1966 - 1968 (Germany)
- BigTwich - Thursday, Jun 10, 10 @ 3:16 pm:
Not that I am still mad about it or anything.
- Responsa - Thursday, Jun 10, 10 @ 3:42 pm:
–Lots of Republicans are just going to stay home, and Democrats have every reason now to hold their nose and stick with Alexi–just sayin’@ 1:40 pm
I am curious as to the reasoning behind your statement that Dem and Repub voters who may be less than thrilled with their candidates will respond differently come election time. Why do you predict that lots of Repubs will stay home but Dems will drag themselves to the polls for Alexi? Why do you think leery and somewhat disappointed Dems will hold their noses but leery and somewhat disappointed Repubs will not hold *their* noses?
- A.B. - Thursday, Jun 10, 10 @ 3:45 pm:
Any way we look at this every competitive campaign comes down to getting up your own positives and getting up your opponent’s negatives. Both sides have CLEARLY raised their opponent’s negatives. Now it is time for them both to hit their own positives and step away from the mud slinging.
I am a huge Kirk supporter, but he deserves what he got and his campaign failed on managing the message.
I still believe that his positives and experience are head and shoulders over AG. Kirk is still the best choice for Illinois.
- A.B. - Thursday, Jun 10, 10 @ 3:48 pm:
@Responsa
Republican’s will turn out. There is too much national excitement and pressure for them to stay home. My prediction is that we will see some of the highest R turnout we have seen in a non-presidential election since ‘94.
- Rob_N - Thursday, Jun 10, 10 @ 3:56 pm:
Like a good poodle, TA was reciting Clay Fearnow’s p.r.:
“I think most Kirk supporters are probably disappointed with the needless distraction this recent flap has caused, but what you guys fail to understand is that we believe in Kirk, and his qualifications, service, intelligence and integrity far outweigh what you and the MSM are trying to blow up into a Blumenthal. Even Rich Miller agrees this has been overblown.”
That quip came in relation to your CapFax post on Mort Kondrake, etc.
I had , too.
–
Just curious, do the many Anons that pop to “defend” Kirk at least have different IPs?
- Rob_N - Thursday, Jun 10, 10 @ 4:07 pm:
Oops. Got my code wrong there. That should read:
“I had something to say, too.”
And should link to:
http://teamamerica10th.blogspot.com/2010/06/kirk-releases-statement-from-his.html?showComment=1275678594330#c171330574365141597
- The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Thursday, Jun 10, 10 @ 4:17 pm:
===
In 11 years I don’t remember a single kirk intnernal leak…
===
Hmmm…so what’s changed in the past 11 years, shore?
Even over the last few years–say since 2008, was it?–and even THIS year, shore?
Hoot!
I think I hear TA calling you back to the 10th District Make Believe World Blog, shore. Time to gloat over others and each other–especiall the “party girls”, shore.
- The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Thursday, Jun 10, 10 @ 4:18 pm:
That was supposed to read:
…especiallY the “party girls, shore.
- Rob_N - Thursday, Jun 10, 10 @ 4:20 pm:
Gawd, that 3:56 post is unclear, ain’t it?
To clarify… Rich, TA referenced your Mort Kondrake post in comments on his own post about Fearnow
Guess I better get back to work now.
- The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Thursday, Jun 10, 10 @ 4:24 pm:
===
Just curious, do the many Anons that pop to “defend” Kirk at least have different IPs?
===
I don’t think so.
It seems to be the same four or five people complimenting each other over and over again–and talking about “waking up each morning to wonderful news”–which, of course, they seem to believe they created somehow.
- The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Thursday, Jun 10, 10 @ 4:24 pm:
And that’s coming from a Kirk supporter.
- The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Thursday, Jun 10, 10 @ 4:26 pm:
10th District culture, maybe?
- The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Thursday, Jun 10, 10 @ 4:28 pm:
But then, again, Rob. That could apply to cat woman’s blog, too.
- The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Thursday, Jun 10, 10 @ 4:30 pm:
Gotta admire them for the blogs both have created within their EXTREMELY limited context and view of Illinois, but I can’t believe that the Sun-Times actually bothered to send people there.
- Team America - Thursday, Jun 10, 10 @ 4:35 pm:
Rob_N and Rich - I’ve been away from the string, but Rob_N courteously explained the reference you asked about, Rich. At the time I said it, I believe that was true. Obviously some time has passed and I can tell you’ve changed your mind somewhat.
- The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Thursday, Jun 10, 10 @ 4:38 pm:
===
At some point, military-wise, you retreat, regroup, and recommit …
===
Unfortunately, even the military get it wrong sometimes on the first try. Give him time.
- The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Thursday, Jun 10, 10 @ 5:05 pm:
===
Why do you think leery and somewhat disappointed Dems will hold their noses but leery and somewhat disappointed Repubs will not hold *their* noses?
===
Why? Republicans–especially Conservatives–like to believe they have greater “principles” and therefore are more likely to skip a vote or write someone in. Furthermore, some would say that we don’t have Unions “telling us what to do”.
- The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Thursday, Jun 10, 10 @ 5:26 pm:
===
Republican’s will turn out. There is too much national excitement and pressure for them to stay home.
===
National “excitement”, A.B?
(OMG! Excitement!!!!! And did you say, NATIONAL excitement?!!!! Even BETTER! Yay! Oh, Boy!!!!)
You’re kidding, right? This election? Here? In the Midwest?
I would have guessed that the final decision might be grounded in “significance” especially as it pertains to the “convervative movement”–and even Moderate Rs.
The significant we’re looking for?
Sending a VERY CLEAR message to those who think we’re high on “national excitment” with the hope that they will GO AWAY faster if we undervote or stay home.
Know what? Hard as it may be to believe, we’ve actually had US Senate races in this State before that got some natinoal press. This is ain’t our first one.
I think it’s people like you with your “preconceived notions” about this State who are going to blow this for Kirk.
- The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Thursday, Jun 10, 10 @ 5:35 pm:
My goodness! Where ARE my manners?!!!
I’m beginning to sound just like some of those folks on IR.
Wonder why?
Hmmm….
- just sayin' - Thursday, Jun 10, 10 @ 5:52 pm:
“I am curious as to the reasoning behind your statement that Dem and Repub voters who may be less than thrilled with their candidates will respond differently come election time.”
I expect we’ll likely see yet another record set for low turnout, by both Rs and Ds.
But don’t forget, there are a LOT more Ds in Illinois than Rs.
Even if a good majority of independents broke the R way this year (and that’s very much up in the air), Republicans need an exceptional turnout to win any election in Illinois anymore.
- The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Thursday, Jun 10, 10 @ 6:09 pm:
===
I expect we’ll likely see yet another record set for low turnout, by both Rs and Ds.
===
I am curious why–based on all that’s happened so far in the US Senate Race–you’d predict that Voters overall would prefer to stay home and watch TV or something, just sayin.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Jun 10, 10 @ 6:36 pm:
–“Friends whose kids have served” is hardly credible unless we hear directly from them, not somebody who apparently has never served.–
Credible about what? You’re not aware that many in the service have been doing multiple, long hitches in harms way?
Maybe you should get your information from someone other than a BSer like Kirk. Those are somebody’s kids doing those long hitches, don’t you think?
And I, like the great majority, have not served or sacrificed anything during these two wars. And it would be despicable to claim anything else.
- The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Thursday, Jun 10, 10 @ 6:42 pm:
===
–“Friends whose kids have served” is hardly credible unless we hear directly from them, not somebody who apparently has never served.–
===
Don’t even want to know who came up with that one.
Pitching one person’s credibility against that of our entire Military?
Really good idea not to go any further down that path.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Jun 10, 10 @ 7:47 pm:
How is not voting for Kirk because you think he’s insulting to friends whose kids have served even credible if you don’t know what those kids who actually served think about Kirk?
- 47th Ward - Thursday, Jun 10, 10 @ 7:48 pm:
===…like the great majority, have not served or sacrificed anything during these two wars. And it would be despicable to claim anything else.===
Me neither Wordslinger, and I agree.
I think it’s also despicable for some to suggest our opinion of military matters is therefore somehow illegitimate because we “never wore the uniform.”
I find that line of thinking very offensive.
- Team America - Thursday, Jun 10, 10 @ 8:38 pm:
=== (OMG! Excitement!!!!! And did you say, NATIONAL excitement?!!!! Even BETTER! Yay! Oh, Boy!!!!) You’re kidding, right? This election? Here? In the Midwest? ===
Um, Anon fka Anon fka whatever: Are you forgetting whose former seat this is? Does anyone on this blog really thing the entire weight of the White House is not already coming down on Kirk behind the scenes?
Is that enough excitement for you?
- The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Thursday, Jun 10, 10 @ 8:56 pm:
Yes, I know exactly whose former seat this is, thank you very much, TA.
However, making assumptions that people will follow blindly on either side is not a very good one. Maybe it’s time for Voters to start demanding that we get back to issues–so that the Candidates can actually earn our trust and tell us why they should be voted in.
- Sarge - Thursday, Jun 10, 10 @ 9:00 pm:
you want to know what a kid who has served thinks about a guy who lies about his service record?
- The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Thursday, Jun 10, 10 @ 9:16 pm:
===
I think it’s also despicable for some to suggest our opinion of military matters is therefore somehow illegitimate because we “never wore the uniform.”
I find that line of thinking very offensive.
===
47th, it seems a bunch of “newbies” have joined us recently who aren’t quite familiar with our “culture” or “standards” or whatever we’d like to call it.
Let’s hope that they catch on soon.
- The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Thursday, Jun 10, 10 @ 9:27 pm:
I never thought I’d hear myself say this:
Anonymous 7:47: Please consider coming up with a handle.
A few months ago that “defaulted” back to its original intent, so many are sharing it now. It’s very difficult to carry on a conversation with people when you don’t know who is who within, of course, the context of a blog.
- Andy Martin - Friday, Jun 11, 10 @ 8:51 am:
I told you so. All of the truths about Kirk came out during the primary, but no one wanted to hear the truth.
Andy Martin