Republican Mark Kirk is proposing seven debates and candidate forums in the race for President Barack Obama’s former Senate seat.
Kirk on Tuesday proposed that the debates begin Aug. 21 in Ottawa with the candidates talking about foreign policy. They would continue through Oct. 21 with a wide-ranging debate in Carbondale. Other debates and forums would focus on Middle East policy, agriculture and jobs.
The Giannoulias campaign says they reached out to Kirk’s campaign last week about debates and have accused the Kirk people of “litigating debates in the media.” From the Giannoulias camp…
We reached out to the Kirk campaign last week and asked to sit down and talk about debates - instead of working with us they pulled this classless stunt.
* Meanwhile, the Kirk campaign has issued two barrages in two days against Alexi Giannoulias. This one’s from yesterday afternoon…
Background: [Yesterday] morning, during a radio appearance on WGN-AM, Alexi Giannoulias made several statements that contradict previous accounts by him and his brother with regard to loans made to convicted mobsters while Alexi Giannoulias was Senior Loan Officer at Broadway Bank.
New Misleading Giannoulias Said: “Now, you know, there are some people who in a perfect world we never would have done business with.”
* FACT: Broadway Bank was aware of Michael “Jaws” Giorango’s mob record when they loaned him money. “Demetris Giannoulias said the bank learned of Giorango’s bookmaking and prostitution promotion convictions from a spring 2004 Tribune report detailing those cases… He said he asked Giorango about the convictions and Giorango said, ‘It’s in the past. I don’t do that anymore.’” (Chicago Tribune, 4/2/10)
* FACT: Alexi said he knew Giorgano had “legal problems.” “Giannoulias insisted he only knew that Giorango had ‘some legal problems’ while he was servicing the loans, declining to say whether he knew they were criminal in nature.” (Chicago Sun-Times, “Giannoulias: I Take It Back,” 4/27/06)
* FACT: Alexi knew about Giorango’s past and thought we was “a very nice person.” “He described Giorango as ‘a very nice person’ and questioned whether Giorango actually was a criminal. ‘Is he a crime figure?’ Giannoulias asked. ‘I don’t know what the charges are that makes him this huge crime figure.’” (Chicago Tribune, 3/15/06)
Misleading Giannoulias Statement: “You look at the credit worthiness of the borrower, you look at the appraisal of the property…You don’t do criminal background checks on who they give loans to.”
* FACT: Alexi made loans despite full knowledge of criminal backgrounds. “‘If every time someone got arrested the bank threw them out, I think it would be a problem,’ Alexi Giannoulias said. ‘We look at the commercial viability of loans, and that’s where we make our credit decisions.’” (Associated Press, 4/8/06)
* FACT: We are supposed to believe that a community bank helped mobsters finance a casino riverboat marina in South Carolina because it was a good investment. “‘From a commercial standpoint, it looked like a loan that should be made,’ Giannoulias said, adding he was unaware the marina was used to dock a SunCruz Casinos riverboat.” (Chicago Tribune, 4/9/06)
Misleading Giannoulias Statement: “I wouldn’t know what a mafia guy looked like if he walked down the street.”
* FACT: Alexi Giannoulias visited mobster Michael “Jaws” Giorango in Miami. “Giannoulias said he traveled to Miami ‘about a year or two ago’ to inspect property the bank had financed for Giorango and met with him there. Giannoulias declined to provide details of that meeting.” (Chicago Tribune, 4/27/06)
* FACT: Alexi admitted meeting Giorango at the bank “a few times.” “But Giannoulias said that since he became a full-time senior loan officer, he has met Giorango at the bank ‘a few’ times.” (Chicago Tribune, 3/15/06)
The Kirk for Senate campaign today called on Alexi Giannoulias to explain his decision to participate in a far left-wing conference that featured panels with Van Jones, marijuana legalization advocates and J-Street.
Last week, Giannoulias announced on his Facebook page that he would be “leading the Illinois Caucus” at the Netroots Nation convention in Las Vegas. The Netroots website showed Giannoulias confirmed to attend the conference’s candidate event as well.
“Alexi Giannoulias’ decision to root his campaign in the far-left should be a troubling signal to independent voters,” Kirk spokesperson Kirsten Kukowski said. “Alexi Giannoulias claims to be mainstream but has no problem associating with 9/11 truthers like Van Jones and other left-wing radicals. Alexi Giannoulias claims to stand with Israel but has no problem aligning his campaign with J-Street and its supporters. The people of Illinois deserve a thoughtful, centrist leader not someone who panders to left-wing fringe groups.”
Kirk is listed as a contributor to Andrew Breitbart’s super-controversial Big Government website, so the guilt by association can cut both ways there. Breitbart ain’t very “centrist.” I’ll leave you to decide whether he’s “thoughtful.”
* But if you really want to see harshness, check out this mocking, but well-done video posted to YouTube yesterday…
It’s interesting that kirk wants 7 debates because that’s more than he’s had in his last 4 congressional races COMBINED. He debated seals once each of the last 2 cycles.
If I were alexi I would try to have as little debate on foreign policy as possible because he’s going to get obliterated on those issues.
contributor to big government means his intern could have posted a press release, hardly Alexi’s embrace of anti-Israel extremist group j-street.
What’s Kirk thinking? Isn’t the “call for debates” card something you play when you’re behind in the polls? Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t he ahead?
I bet they don’t talk much about issues if there are 17 debates. Both these guys have negatives you can go on and on about. Plus, the bad blood is on the boil.
Pretty good staff work by Kirk’s folks on Alexi’s waffling on the bank.
The Commander McBragg is inspired. Almost perfect. It’s a home run with cartoon watchers of a certain age like me.
Smart move on Kirk’s behalf. Regardless of his recent troubles, when the electorate starts to pay attention, which debates play a part in creating excitement, the storylines will be about issues and experience. Those are winners for Kirk.
He exaggerated/lied/misremembered/mispoke. Regardless, he served. ALexi also did the same, but about loans to mobsters from his now failed family bank.
Rich, you seem to be harder on Kirk (serious). Why don’t you criticize folks like SLCohen (joking)
Another Day In Illinois - Collins, enhanced by VanillaMan
We shout out to the man on the stump
“HEY, why can’t you hear us?
We’re broke and we’re tired of playing the chump,
Why are you all wrapped up in your appearance?”
He walks off, runs off of the stage
He pretends he can’t hear us
As all of Illinois is thoroughly enrage
These campaigns are ludicrous!
Oh, oh Boy! it’s another day for
You and me in Illinois
Corruption and vice, and debt will destroy,
You and me in Illinois.
Kirk tell us that his opponent lies
Alexi is a mob banker
Giannoulais then fight right back
Claims that Kirk is a faker
Oh, oh great! it’s another day for
Us in this really stupid State!
Oh, give us a break! Obviously both,
Both you guys are completely fake!
Oh lord, is there nothing more we can do?
Oh lord, are you moving to Indiana too?
They can tell from the smirk on our face,
That we don’t believe them.
But both parties don’t want to erase
And hold the Primary again.
Oh, oh sucks! Both Mark and Alexi
Turns our iron stomachs!
Oh, this blows! How can voters choose between,
Between these two Pinocchios?
ABC7 should not be allowed to do the debate, they did an awful awful job in the primary and phil ponce and wttw should do the debate. By far ABC was the worst, and it’s not worth the time. Ponce did the obama-keyes debates and is the top guy to do thisfor a general chicagoland debate.
For those of you that don’t know glenbrook north from glenbrook south, northbrook is a heavily jewish suburb in the heart of the congressman’s district. the group he proposes running the debate has given money to him in the past and their donors are staunch kirk supporters. When they say “middle east policy” they really mean 2 hours of showing love for israel and questions like, should we double or triple aid to Israel and should we bomb iran this week or next week?
“What’s Kirk thinking? Isn’t the “call for debates” card something you play when you’re behind in the polls? Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t he ahead?”
Normally you are correct.
However, first consider Kirk’s opponent. Alexi probably will not do well in these debates, especially in the area of foreign policy (assumes the pat answers that he will regurgitate are shown as that by the media in their after-action analysis). Notice also that Kirk proposes to lead with Alexi’s perceived weakness.
Secondly, seven is a whole lot of debates. I’m sure the Kirk advisors smell blood when it comes to Alexi’s knowledge of national-type issues and Alexi’s ability to think on his feet. I’m sure that the campaigns will settle for some number like 4 debates.
Thirdly, what better way to kill two birds with one stone. I’m sure Kirk’s team is working furiously on a narrative to handle the “liar” problem. They have a chance to put this issue to rest. They also have a chance to refocus the media attention away from this issue to ANYTHING else.
Debate prep takes many days. Kirk’s team probably feels they would gain a day or two for each debate, meaning Alexi would need to prepare for a longer period of time than Kirk. Every day you are busy doing something else is a day lost getting your message out.
If Alexi complains about the number of dates (you get a hint of this by their response quoted above) he risks coming off as hiding. Brutal in this political environment, especially since there is a meme that Democrats have been avoiding their constituents, like their failure to hold town halls during the ObamaCare debate.
I think that the proposal for seven debates is both a defensive maneuver by Kirk (shift “liar” debate) and a very aggressive offensive maneuver to reshape the debate and try to knock Alexi on his heels.
This is the first interesting political tactic in this race. Can’t wait to see this play out.
i don’t believe kirk. i strongly suspect that kirk would find some way to back out of these debates if alexi agreed to this schedule. we just can’t trust kirk.
seven debates would be great. strangely, though, two debates about foreign policy — when one would be *more* than sufficient — shows that kirk is being disingenuous. kirk can’t be trusted, i don’t think even he believes that he’ll show up for seven appearances where people get to ask him questions…
Kirk really has a problem with “exaggerations.”
Kirk’s characterization of Van Jones as a “truther” makes it sound like Van Jones was actively promoting the “truther” ideas about 9/11. Van Jones is not a “truther.” He apparently signed one truther petition but later disavowed believing in truther ideas. There is a major difference.
Kirk’s use of smear tactics and guilt by association says a lot about his character. Is he running for Senate or trying to be a guest on Glen Beck?
===Van Jones is not a “truther.” He apparently signed one truther petition but later disavowed believing in truther ideas. There is a major difference.
Not true actually. He never signed the petition and the organization that listed him had to admit that.
Alexi has one real problem. Due to Rep. Kirk’s Israel position, Kirk is taking a huge chunk of the Jewish Democratic vote. I know this from working in the Jewish Community, that there are Hard core Democrats who give and vote Republican for Mark Kirk solely based on Israel. That is money and votes that are not going to be for Alexi. Alexi needs to shore up on foreign policy if he is going to have any chance against Rep. Kirk in the Jewish Community.
the questions were awful and the format was more about getting their people publicity than asking tough questions. It was an infomercial for them and a disgrace.
As I said, Ponce does the best job and asks the best questions and wttw should get the debate. It’s not law that the league of women voters has to be included in anything.
the northbrook debate group has given kirk 25k over 10 years. Hardly an independent source for a debate. I am a far right wing supporter of israel, but having a pro-israel group run a debate on foreign policy is a waste of time because it will be ONLY about israel and more specifically iran’s threat to the jewish state which is probably not of interest to many people outside the north shore and certainly not worth 1/7th of the debates. They should have a forum on those issues, but it should either be not 1/7th of the debates or should be retitled foreign policy with focus on the broad portfolio from china, to afghanistan to mexico to the congo, to pakistan and yes israel/iran.
The Lincoln-Douglas debates served the nation’s interests and showcased the policy differences and personality strengths of two Illinois politicians who were running for office. Kirk and Giannoulias are not Lincoln and Douglas by a long shot and the public today is not as enamored with extemporaneous political speech as it once was. Still, I say let the (7) debates begin! This is an important election.
If the U.S. Senate race has debates, I hope that all of the candidates will participate. Rep. Kirk disagrees with most of the republican platform, and the debate should include at least one candidate who agrees with most of that platform, Randy Stufflebeam.
Kirk’s press release specifically mentions the Lincoln-Douglas connection also. The schedule isn’t exactly identical but the Ottawa and Alton debates do coincide with the dates that Lincoln and Douglas debated in those cities.
sure, but people trusted lincoln and douglas. you can’t trust kirk: he lies about his military record, he uses his lies to bully people, then he lies about whether his lies are significant or “only about his resume.” i think he’s lying about wanting any debates, and i’m fairly certain that his strategy is to refuse to debate and then blame his refusal on alexi.
mark kirk won’t even answer the questions of downstaters who are inclined to support him. how can we possibly believe that he will take questions from people who are more objective? it’s a feint, pure and simple. mark kirk won’t stand for it and we can’t trust him…
=I’m sure Kirk’s team is working furiously on a narrative to handle the “liar” problem.=
The “liar” problem can’t be handled because Kirk can’t quit lying. Just look at the lie he told recently.
When Kirk was recently interviewed by a hard working journalist, Chris Landry, about his Coast Guard Rescue Kirk twice refers to being on the water as darkness fell. The Coast Guard rescued him at 2:52 p.m
Pressed on the timing of the rescue, Kirk told the Tribune the magazine reporter must have made a mistake. Informed the interview was recorded, Kirk then said he did not watch the sunset but denied embellishing his story
Kirk lies about the rescue story, which is no surprise because he lies about everything. Then he tried to put the blame on the reporter by lying and saying the reporter messed up. Then he finds out his lie was recorded and only then admits to his lie but then turns right around and lies again saying the lie was not a lie.
The moral of this story is if you ever talk to a liar like Kirk you better have the conversation recorded.
The whole “Kirk is a liar” meme is tired. Look, politicans lie ALL THE TIME regardless of what party they are in. That’s not to excuse his seemingly deliberate “mistruths,” however, when the majority of voters are asked to decide the winner of the race, Kirk’s lying will be so far down the list.
In CT, Richard Blumenthal had “exaggerations” and “lies” that were much, MUCH more egregious than anything Kirk said and he’s practically a lock to win his senate race.
The issue at hand is the politics of the race and the tactical manuevers that are being done behind the scenes. AG has a problem with the Jewish vote, has struggled with the AA vote, and given the polling of independents nationally and on a state basis, will have a hard time with them as well. Despite media pundits trying to tell us otherwise, this race is moving away from AG pretty quickly.
Who in the electorate will watch 7 debates between tweedle-kirk and tweedle-alexi? Is this an effort by Kirk to get people to ignore the Senate race(s)? Is it 7 per race for a total of 14? (yet another stupid complication in the Senate race). Seriously, what does 7 debates purport to gain except, perhaps, to tie up Alexi in debate time to keep him busy.
- Roland in my 6-4 - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 11:47 am:
I’d like to hear more about Alexi “saving” 600 Hartmarx jobs. I think that’s pretty much an emellishment or a lie. He threatened a bank (Wells Fargo) by pulling state business. Wow, what a savior! And after the sale went thru, 300 workers in Rock Island were laid off because they closed that plant down. Alexi should clarify this because this is one of his few “accomplishments”.
That McBragg spot is spot-on! I wonder if Kirk will come back with Tennessee Tuxedo.
- Roland in my 6-4 - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 11:48 am:
Also, if Alexi is attacking liars, why is he hitting up fundraisers with Connecticut Senate hopeful Blumenthal who lied about going to Vietnam. He never left the states. Alexi should denounce Blumenthal in front of the entire DNC if he doesn’t like or trust liars.
Yet another illuminating post. Hey, Kirk embellished. I concede that. Hey, you don’t like Kirk, obviously.
My post is an attempt to get the posters on this blog to engage in why Kirk has proposed seven debates, not to defend him in any way.
But one-trick-ponies like you and your ilk refuse to engage in any discussion at all, and are turning this blog into partisan hackery which reinforces some opinions expressed here that Rich is being unfair in his betrayal of Kirk.
You need to quit attacking anyone who has “Kirk” in his post. I don’t like Kirk, and I don’t like Alexi. But people like you think they are making the case for why people should vote for Alexi. I only wish you had a bigger megaphone, I’d like to see how voters react to your style of messaging.
In the meantime, try to engage in a debate about why something is happening, you may be able to provide insights that others don’t have. But your constant harping on the “liar” meme is old, tiresome and boring. We get it. Honestly we do. Time for you and others like you to start looking for other arguments, we’re all smart enough to understand your repetitious rants.
Bored, it seems that not only have you made up your mind, have a steady mantra, and any new or additional information between now and November re: the US Senate race is not needed or wanted by you,– but you also fancy yourself a mindreader. Many others of us would very much appreciate hearing more from both Kirk and Giannouliias on specific topics in a true “debate” situation with a competent moderator, where there might actually be a chance to learn something new about how they think, and react under pressure. Running for political office is not for the faint of heart and can be a risky business as we have all seen recently. One of them will be elected and will represent us all in Washington. We should demand that both men participate in multiple debates. Time will tell who agrees and who reneges. (I think you may find that your crystal ball has failed you.)
===And you can judge for your self if the former communist is a conservative or liberal.
Of course, that’s not the question. Is he far left? Was he far left? Yeah. Pretty obviously. Is he far left is a different question and one pointed out in your own source.
And your quote is from that time before his views changed again begging the question. Wright’s views are different as well, as you know from the context of Jones quote, he’s not saying the US deserved it, he’s saying that injustice and violence leads to more injustice and violence and suggests that bombing alone won’t fix the problem. And 9 years later, we are now trying something other than bombing alone in Afghanistan.
A marxist or communist doesn’t promote green jobs in a capitalist system. It’s a rather funny claim that the guy calling on economic transformation through the market is a communist.
“A marxist or communist doesn’t promote green jobs in a capitalist system. It’s a rather funny claim that the guy calling on economic transformation through the market is a communist.”
You seem to leave out one very important sentence from my post:
“And you can judge for your self if the former communist is a conservative or liberal.”
This campaign is a mudbath, and both candidates are thoroughly coated in mud. Their partisan supporters on this blog somehow think their school yard chants about one being a liar or the other being a mob banker should satisfy those capable of looking beyond petty stupid political stunts.
Debates could help get this race out of the gutter.
- The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 12:05 pm:
=My post is an attempt to get the posters on this blog to engage in why Kirk has proposed seven debates, not to defend him in any way.=
Cincinnatus: Most on this blog not only know why, but actually could have even predicted this and the timing of same–without any “clues” from Kirk’s team.
=and are turning this blog into partisan hackery which reinforces some opinions expressed here that *Rich is being unfair in his betrayal of Kirk.*=
—-“And you can judge for your self if the former communist is a conservative or liberal.”
No one denies he’s a liberal. The question is he far left. If the argument is that Van Jones said and believed dumb things 9 years ago—fine. But that’s not the argument. The argument is that Van Jones is a crazy left winger and so if Alexi was at the same conference Alexi must be a crazy left winger. The problem is that Van Jones doesn’t appear to be a crazy left winger and so his presence at the event doesn’t make the point Kirk wanted to make.
One can argue that there hasn’t been enough time between his old views and new views, but then it’s an argument over when does someone legitimately change. Where is it between Van Jones and say David Horowitz that someone can claim to have legitimately changed their views.
Responsa: i’m absolutely making a prediction (and an easy one, at that!). we can’t trust kirk and it’s much more likely that kirk is “exaggerating” his desire for 7 debates than not. i base my prediction on FACTS (i know, i know, you’d rather take his word for it): kirk wouldn’t answer questions from voters from taylorville inclined to support him *and* he has a proven pattern of making stuff up. no prudent person would take his word for it.
you’d have to be an idiot to think that just because i realize kirk’s a liar that i wouldn’t love for him to actually show up for seven debates. but there’s far too much proof to suggest that he won’t. if he won’t talk to possible supporters, why would he take questions from reporters who’d be more inclined to chew him up? personally, i think kirk’s too much of a coward, he just doesn’t expose himself to vulnerable situations.
i’m all for debates, the more the merrier! but understand that kirk won’t follow through here. he’ll use any excuse to blame alexi for kirk’s own failure to show up…
===Folks who don’t understand why a candidate should avoid Van Jones are as blinded as folks who don’t understand why a candidate should avoid Tom Delay.
No, there are a ton of differences between the two cases. One is under indictment for campaign finance violations–money laundering–and is well known to the general public and disliked. Oh, and he flirts with weird political beliefs like birtherism.
The other is a guy that hardly anyone knows outside of political activists and has moderated his views and holds fairly liberal, but hardly radical ideas.
- The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 12:28 pm:
=personally, i think kirk’s too much of a coward, he just doesn’t expose himself to vulnerable situations.=
All depends, I suppose, on whether one believes that debates would provide Kirk and Giannoulias with opportunities to display weaknesses or srengths.
sure. not a lot of risk of betting against a wuss who ran away from reporters through, what, a kitchen? kirk’s cowardice is documented.
alexi, otoh, has taken on the most powerful man in the state, the speaker, and won.
my money is definitely on the candidate that beat madigan…
- Louis G. Atsaves - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 1:17 pm:
Let me get this straight? Giannoulias is complaining about a call for 7 debates in different parts of the State? Giannoulias thinks that a call for 7 debates is “classless?”
The rapid fire response team over at Team Alexi fumbled that one pretty badly. Makes Giannoulias out as being fearful of debating.
Perhaps the debates will serve to allow this ugly campaign to emerge from the ugly bilateral mudslinging? Or is that too “classless” to consider?
I don’t get it.
- The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 1:23 pm:
I’d hate to say it, Louis, but I have a feeling that bored might be hoping that the seven debates will go about as well as that one “infamous” debate during the Primary–v. the anomaly it really was.
Let me get this straight? Giannoulias is complaining about a call for 7 debates in different parts of the State? Giannoulias thinks that a call for 7 debates is “classless?”
Nope… you don’t have it “straight” at all.
Good attempt at completely distorting what the Giannoulias said thought. Well done.
NetRoots Nation was also addressed by Dem Leader Harry Reid, Speaker Pelosi, President Obama (via tape), Al Franken, Steny Hoyer, Rep. Raul Gravijla and basically every other major player in the Democratic party. I guess that makes all of them all crazy lefties, too, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.
For Giannoulis its a no-brainer to go there - there’s a ton of money to be raised and these people represent the most active aspects of the Dem base, so if you make a good impression there’s a multiplier effect in terms of fundraising, campaign help, etc.
My sense from reading the post is Alexi’s people thought Kirk was classless because Alexi’s staff approached Kirk about debates and rather than negotiate with them in good faith, Kirk grandstanded by publicly challenging Alexi to the 7 debates. I wouldn’t personally call it classless. Dishonorable seems more accurate.
I have no doubt that the “dance” over debate negotiations takes place all the time and grandstanding is standard practice, but it doesn’t make it honorable.
The original story doesn’t provide much detail but it looks like Kirk is presenting the idea to debate as his idea even though Alexi’s people presented it to him first.
right. it’s about a proposal supposedly made by mark kirk, who’s demonstrated an unwillingness to answer questions from voters downstate (who are inclined to support him, or somebody much more conservative), and whether we should take it (the proposal) seriously.
because we can’t trust anything that comes out of mark kirk’s mouth. either he makes it up or finds a way to exaggerate it beyond recognition…
If there are debates it’s important to have fact checkers ready because Kirk lies about many things–not just his military record or his rescue in the lake. He lies about matters of public policy too (health care, the war in Iraq, etc.)
I agree with the comment above–it’s important to record Kirk because he will lie about anything. Up until now, he’s just relied on people forgetting his lies and not holding him accountable.
Now that’s changed and that’s good for Giannoulias.
Objective Dem– Every top tier election in memory has had some form of televised debate, has it not? Before that, the debates between candidates were presented on radio or as they traveled from town to town. If candidates debating the issues were a new, novel, revolutionary, never-thought-of- before development, then whomever invented it first and should get credit for the idea might be worth discussing. But as you are attempting to present it here—not so much. Do you really think the issue of “who suggested some Kirk-Alexi debates first” is going to capture peoples’ imaginations and affect voters’ decisions in the booth? I sure don’t. Of all the bizarre manufactured kerfuffles between the 2 campaigns this one truly takes the cake.
I agree that who originated the idea of a debate is not a real issue. I initially commented on the issue to correct Louis’s mischaracterization of the issue. Since then I have stood by my characterization of Kirk’s actions as dishonorable. Its not as dishonorable as being warned by the military to stop political activity on duty. And it isn’t even close to being as dishonorable as telling the Chinese to be wary of buying US treasuries. But it is still dishonorable.
Does anyone really believe AG’s camp thought last week, Gee maybe we should do some debates with Kirk and asked to sit down and disscuss?
Negotiations have probably been going on for weeks/months. Alexi’s response is weak and he sounds scared.
In 1858, there was no radio, TV, or 24-hour news cycle. Sure, there was probably newspaper coverage, but nobody outside of a few press writers sat through all 7 debates…they were held around the state so that downstaters could see the candidates in person.
Outside of the pretensions of a historical reenactment (You, Rep. Kirk, are no Abe Lincoln) seven debates for a senate seat in this day and age are ludicrous. What on Earth would they talk about?
I don’t see any reason to hold more than three. Perhaps one for domestic issues, one for foreign policy, and one set aside for nothing but personal attacks. (rimshot, please)
Oh, and I can’t wait to see Dold and Seals go at it.
truer words have never been typed by a conservative such a yourself
@Anonymous - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 8:11 pm:
“Alexi’s response is weak and he sounds scared.”
funny. alot of peeps were thinking the same thing about mark kirk’s bad abraham lincoln impression.
why not just come to an agreement on the debate formats and announce it together like adults instead of putting out this childish nah-nah-boo-boo press release?
Hub Bub, you miss the point. It seems an agreement on format and whatnot is not agreeable…isn’t that what debate is all about??
- Louis G. Atsaves - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 10:51 pm:
So asking for 7 debates is “dishonorable” according to an Alexi supporter?
I still don’t get it. What is all the squawking about? For Alexi’s rapid response team to be effective, they have to make a point. Complaining about 7 debates as a public proposal as being “classless” makes no sense at all.
- Louis G. Atsaves - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 10:51 pm:
So asking for 7 debates is “dishonorable” according to an Alexi supporter?
I still don’t get it. What is all the squawking about? For Alexi’s rapid response team to be effective, they have to make a point. Complaining about 7 debates as a public proposal as being “classless” makes no sense at all.
louis, the fact that you think alexi would be afraid to debate someone who we KNOW will screw up (we’ll catch kirk in another lie, or he’ll overexaggerate something he supposedly did, etc) demonstrates a severe lack of intelligence. of course alexi’s supporters want as many debates as possible, but no serious person thinks kirk will debate alexi seven times. kirk RUNS away from the press, the coward. he refuses to take questions from conservatives. it’s absurd to take this proposal seriously. he’s lying to us! he’ll run from this, as well…
- Louis G. Atsaves - Wednesday, Jul 28, 10 @ 7:05 am:
bored, the debates will show Alexi tripping and stumbling and proving that he is an empty suit. Alexi also has been hiding from the press, a fact everyone tries to ignore around here.
The debates will allow issues to emerge from the mud slinging and name calling. What is so “dishonorable” or “classless” about that?
heh. speaker madigan underestimated alexi, too. he’s been mad about it every since. it’s hard to take claims that alexi will be “tripping and stumbling” during the debates since kirk is highly likely to severely limit their number and, in those which do occur, EVERYONE will be waiting for mark kirk to tell another whopper! alexi will impress and kirk will lie. the press will overlook the former and focus entirely on the latter…
- VanillaMan - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 10:25 am:
Right.
No one wants to really discuss real issues in this race, do we?
We just want to hear about McBragg and “Jaws”.
- shore - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 10:27 am:
It’s interesting that kirk wants 7 debates because that’s more than he’s had in his last 4 congressional races COMBINED. He debated seals once each of the last 2 cycles.
If I were alexi I would try to have as little debate on foreign policy as possible because he’s going to get obliterated on those issues.
contributor to big government means his intern could have posted a press release, hardly Alexi’s embrace of anti-Israel extremist group j-street.
- MKA1985 - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 10:29 am:
What’s Kirk thinking? Isn’t the “call for debates” card something you play when you’re behind in the polls? Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t he ahead?
- Secret Square - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 10:29 am:
“Kirk proposed that the debates begin Aug. 21 in Ottawa”
Hmmm, the first Lincoln-Douglas debate took place in Ottawa on Aug. 21, 1858… and there were 7 of them… anyone see a pattern here?
- Roland in my 6-4 - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 10:31 am:
Just have a few debates. I don’t care who proposes or how they occur, just have a few debates so we can have some substance.
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 10:32 am:
I bet they don’t talk much about issues if there are 17 debates. Both these guys have negatives you can go on and on about. Plus, the bad blood is on the boil.
Pretty good staff work by Kirk’s folks on Alexi’s waffling on the bank.
The Commander McBragg is inspired. Almost perfect. It’s a home run with cartoon watchers of a certain age like me.
- just sayin' - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 10:41 am:
It will take 3 debates just to get in everything Kirk wants to say about he solved all the problems in the Middle East.
- Boone Logan Square - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 10:47 am:
Van Jones is the far left? So Kirk is against people who want to bring jobs into Illinois?
- Logical Thinker - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 10:47 am:
Smart move on Kirk’s behalf. Regardless of his recent troubles, when the electorate starts to pay attention, which debates play a part in creating excitement, the storylines will be about issues and experience. Those are winners for Kirk.
- Wumpus - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 10:53 am:
He exaggerated/lied/misremembered/mispoke. Regardless, he served. ALexi also did the same, but about loans to mobsters from his now failed family bank.
Rich, you seem to be harder on Kirk (serious). Why don’t you criticize folks like SLCohen (joking)
- VanillaMan - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 10:54 am:
Another Day In Illinois - Collins, enhanced by VanillaMan
We shout out to the man on the stump
“HEY, why can’t you hear us?
We’re broke and we’re tired of playing the chump,
Why are you all wrapped up in your appearance?”
He walks off, runs off of the stage
He pretends he can’t hear us
As all of Illinois is thoroughly enrage
These campaigns are ludicrous!
Oh, oh Boy! it’s another day for
You and me in Illinois
Corruption and vice, and debt will destroy,
You and me in Illinois.
Kirk tell us that his opponent lies
Alexi is a mob banker
Giannoulais then fight right back
Claims that Kirk is a faker
Oh, oh great! it’s another day for
Us in this really stupid State!
Oh, give us a break! Obviously both,
Both you guys are completely fake!
Oh lord, is there nothing more we can do?
Oh lord, are you moving to Indiana too?
They can tell from the smirk on our face,
That we don’t believe them.
But both parties don’t want to erase
And hold the Primary again.
Oh, oh sucks! Both Mark and Alexi
Turns our iron stomachs!
Oh, this blows! How can voters choose between,
Between these two Pinocchios?
- VanillaMan - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 10:57 am:
Van Jones is the far left?
Yes. Yes, he most definately is.
Why is Giannoulais there? He has done such a great job avoiding these bozos! Is he that short on cash?
- shore - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 10:59 am:
lynn sweet posted the full schedule.
ABC7 should not be allowed to do the debate, they did an awful awful job in the primary and phil ponce and wttw should do the debate. By far ABC was the worst, and it’s not worth the time. Ponce did the obama-keyes debates and is the top guy to do thisfor a general chicagoland debate.
For those of you that don’t know glenbrook north from glenbrook south, northbrook is a heavily jewish suburb in the heart of the congressman’s district. the group he proposes running the debate has given money to him in the past and their donors are staunch kirk supporters. When they say “middle east policy” they really mean 2 hours of showing love for israel and questions like, should we double or triple aid to Israel and should we bomb iran this week or next week?
- Cincinnatus - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 10:59 am:
- MKA1985 - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 10:29 am:
“What’s Kirk thinking? Isn’t the “call for debates” card something you play when you’re behind in the polls? Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t he ahead?”
Normally you are correct.
However, first consider Kirk’s opponent. Alexi probably will not do well in these debates, especially in the area of foreign policy (assumes the pat answers that he will regurgitate are shown as that by the media in their after-action analysis). Notice also that Kirk proposes to lead with Alexi’s perceived weakness.
Secondly, seven is a whole lot of debates. I’m sure the Kirk advisors smell blood when it comes to Alexi’s knowledge of national-type issues and Alexi’s ability to think on his feet. I’m sure that the campaigns will settle for some number like 4 debates.
Thirdly, what better way to kill two birds with one stone. I’m sure Kirk’s team is working furiously on a narrative to handle the “liar” problem. They have a chance to put this issue to rest. They also have a chance to refocus the media attention away from this issue to ANYTHING else.
Debate prep takes many days. Kirk’s team probably feels they would gain a day or two for each debate, meaning Alexi would need to prepare for a longer period of time than Kirk. Every day you are busy doing something else is a day lost getting your message out.
If Alexi complains about the number of dates (you get a hint of this by their response quoted above) he risks coming off as hiding. Brutal in this political environment, especially since there is a meme that Democrats have been avoiding their constituents, like their failure to hold town halls during the ObamaCare debate.
I think that the proposal for seven debates is both a defensive maneuver by Kirk (shift “liar” debate) and a very aggressive offensive maneuver to reshape the debate and try to knock Alexi on his heels.
This is the first interesting political tactic in this race. Can’t wait to see this play out.
- (618) Democrat - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 11:01 am:
How can you debate a pathological liar like Kirk? You can’t believe a word he says!
- bored now - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 11:01 am:
i don’t believe kirk. i strongly suspect that kirk would find some way to back out of these debates if alexi agreed to this schedule. we just can’t trust kirk.
seven debates would be great. strangely, though, two debates about foreign policy — when one would be *more* than sufficient — shows that kirk is being disingenuous. kirk can’t be trusted, i don’t think even he believes that he’ll show up for seven appearances where people get to ask him questions…
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 11:04 am:
===ABC7 should not be allowed to do the debate===
The problem wasn’t ABC7, the problem was the League of Women Voters’ thoroughly stupid format.
- Objective Dem - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 11:05 am:
Kirk really has a problem with “exaggerations.”
Kirk’s characterization of Van Jones as a “truther” makes it sound like Van Jones was actively promoting the “truther” ideas about 9/11. Van Jones is not a “truther.” He apparently signed one truther petition but later disavowed believing in truther ideas. There is a major difference.
Kirk’s use of smear tactics and guilt by association says a lot about his character. Is he running for Senate or trying to be a guest on Glen Beck?
- ArchPundit - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 11:08 am:
===Van Jones is not a “truther.” He apparently signed one truther petition but later disavowed believing in truther ideas. There is a major difference.
Not true actually. He never signed the petition and the organization that listed him had to admit that.
- Independent Minded Dem - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 11:10 am:
Alexi has one real problem. Due to Rep. Kirk’s Israel position, Kirk is taking a huge chunk of the Jewish Democratic vote. I know this from working in the Jewish Community, that there are Hard core Democrats who give and vote Republican for Mark Kirk solely based on Israel. That is money and votes that are not going to be for Alexi. Alexi needs to shore up on foreign policy if he is going to have any chance against Rep. Kirk in the Jewish Community.
- ArchPundit - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 11:10 am:
==Yes. Yes, he most definately is.
How is Van Jones far left?
- shore - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 11:11 am:
the questions were awful and the format was more about getting their people publicity than asking tough questions. It was an infomercial for them and a disgrace.
As I said, Ponce does the best job and asks the best questions and wttw should get the debate. It’s not law that the league of women voters has to be included in anything.
the northbrook debate group has given kirk 25k over 10 years. Hardly an independent source for a debate. I am a far right wing supporter of israel, but having a pro-israel group run a debate on foreign policy is a waste of time because it will be ONLY about israel and more specifically iran’s threat to the jewish state which is probably not of interest to many people outside the north shore and certainly not worth 1/7th of the debates. They should have a forum on those issues, but it should either be not 1/7th of the debates or should be retitled foreign policy with focus on the broad portfolio from china, to afghanistan to mexico to the congo, to pakistan and yes israel/iran.
- Responsa - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 11:11 am:
The Lincoln-Douglas debates served the nation’s interests and showcased the policy differences and personality strengths of two Illinois politicians who were running for office. Kirk and Giannoulias are not Lincoln and Douglas by a long shot and the public today is not as enamored with extemporaneous political speech as it once was. Still, I say let the (7) debates begin! This is an important election.
- Conservative Veteran - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 11:15 am:
If the U.S. Senate race has debates, I hope that all of the candidates will participate. Rep. Kirk disagrees with most of the republican platform, and the debate should include at least one candidate who agrees with most of that platform, Randy Stufflebeam.
- Objective Dem - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 11:21 am:
Thanks Archpundit,
I assumed that there was a kernel of truth in Kirk’s statement about Van Jones being a truther. It was a bigger “exaggeration”/smear than I thought.
- Secret Square - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 11:22 am:
Kirk’s press release specifically mentions the Lincoln-Douglas connection also. The schedule isn’t exactly identical but the Ottawa and Alton debates do coincide with the dates that Lincoln and Douglas debated in those cities.
- bored now - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 11:24 am:
sure, but people trusted lincoln and douglas. you can’t trust kirk: he lies about his military record, he uses his lies to bully people, then he lies about whether his lies are significant or “only about his resume.” i think he’s lying about wanting any debates, and i’m fairly certain that his strategy is to refuse to debate and then blame his refusal on alexi.
mark kirk won’t even answer the questions of downstaters who are inclined to support him. how can we possibly believe that he will take questions from people who are more objective? it’s a feint, pure and simple. mark kirk won’t stand for it and we can’t trust him…
- ArchPundit - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 11:27 am:
===Thanks Archpundit,
I was in the same boat until recently. It’s an interesting story.
- (618) Democrat - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 11:32 am:
@cincy 10:59
=I’m sure Kirk’s team is working furiously on a narrative to handle the “liar” problem.=
The “liar” problem can’t be handled because Kirk can’t quit lying. Just look at the lie he told recently.
When Kirk was recently interviewed by a hard working journalist, Chris Landry, about his Coast Guard Rescue Kirk twice refers to being on the water as darkness fell. The Coast Guard rescued him at 2:52 p.m
Pressed on the timing of the rescue, Kirk told the Tribune the magazine reporter must have made a mistake. Informed the interview was recorded, Kirk then said he did not watch the sunset but denied embellishing his story
Kirk lies about the rescue story, which is no surprise because he lies about everything. Then he tried to put the blame on the reporter by lying and saying the reporter messed up. Then he finds out his lie was recorded and only then admits to his lie but then turns right around and lies again saying the lie was not a lie.
The moral of this story is if you ever talk to a liar like Kirk you better have the conversation recorded.
- Cincinnatus - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 11:40 am:
- ArchPundit - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 11:10 am:
“How is Van Jones far left?”
“It’s the bombs that the government has been dropping around the world that are now blowing up inside the U.S. borders.”
- Van Jones
“America’s chickens coming home to roost.”
Jeremiah Wright
And you can judge for your self if the former communist is a conservative or liberal.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/08/glenn-beck/glenn-beck-says-van-jones-avowed-communist/
- Logical Thinker - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 11:43 am:
The whole “Kirk is a liar” meme is tired. Look, politicans lie ALL THE TIME regardless of what party they are in. That’s not to excuse his seemingly deliberate “mistruths,” however, when the majority of voters are asked to decide the winner of the race, Kirk’s lying will be so far down the list.
In CT, Richard Blumenthal had “exaggerations” and “lies” that were much, MUCH more egregious than anything Kirk said and he’s practically a lock to win his senate race.
The issue at hand is the politics of the race and the tactical manuevers that are being done behind the scenes. AG has a problem with the Jewish vote, has struggled with the AA vote, and given the polling of independents nationally and on a state basis, will have a hard time with them as well. Despite media pundits trying to tell us otherwise, this race is moving away from AG pretty quickly.
Debates won’t help him.
- D.P. Gumby - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 11:45 am:
Who in the electorate will watch 7 debates between tweedle-kirk and tweedle-alexi? Is this an effort by Kirk to get people to ignore the Senate race(s)? Is it 7 per race for a total of 14? (yet another stupid complication in the Senate race). Seriously, what does 7 debates purport to gain except, perhaps, to tie up Alexi in debate time to keep him busy.
- Roland in my 6-4 - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 11:47 am:
I’d like to hear more about Alexi “saving” 600 Hartmarx jobs. I think that’s pretty much an emellishment or a lie. He threatened a bank (Wells Fargo) by pulling state business. Wow, what a savior! And after the sale went thru, 300 workers in Rock Island were laid off because they closed that plant down. Alexi should clarify this because this is one of his few “accomplishments”.
- David Starrett - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 11:48 am:
That McBragg spot is spot-on! I wonder if Kirk will come back with Tennessee Tuxedo.
- Roland in my 6-4 - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 11:48 am:
Also, if Alexi is attacking liars, why is he hitting up fundraisers with Connecticut Senate hopeful Blumenthal who lied about going to Vietnam. He never left the states. Alexi should denounce Blumenthal in front of the entire DNC if he doesn’t like or trust liars.
- Cincinnatus - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 11:49 am:
- (618) Democrat - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 11:32 am:
Yet another illuminating post. Hey, Kirk embellished. I concede that. Hey, you don’t like Kirk, obviously.
My post is an attempt to get the posters on this blog to engage in why Kirk has proposed seven debates, not to defend him in any way.
But one-trick-ponies like you and your ilk refuse to engage in any discussion at all, and are turning this blog into partisan hackery which reinforces some opinions expressed here that Rich is being unfair in his betrayal of Kirk.
You need to quit attacking anyone who has “Kirk” in his post. I don’t like Kirk, and I don’t like Alexi. But people like you think they are making the case for why people should vote for Alexi. I only wish you had a bigger megaphone, I’d like to see how voters react to your style of messaging.
In the meantime, try to engage in a debate about why something is happening, you may be able to provide insights that others don’t have. But your constant harping on the “liar” meme is old, tiresome and boring. We get it. Honestly we do. Time for you and others like you to start looking for other arguments, we’re all smart enough to understand your repetitious rants.
- Responsa - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 11:51 am:
Bored, it seems that not only have you made up your mind, have a steady mantra, and any new or additional information between now and November re: the US Senate race is not needed or wanted by you,– but you also fancy yourself a mindreader. Many others of us would very much appreciate hearing more from both Kirk and Giannouliias on specific topics in a true “debate” situation with a competent moderator, where there might actually be a chance to learn something new about how they think, and react under pressure. Running for political office is not for the faint of heart and can be a risky business as we have all seen recently. One of them will be elected and will represent us all in Washington. We should demand that both men participate in multiple debates. Time will tell who agrees and who reneges. (I think you may find that your crystal ball has failed you.)
- ArchPundit - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 11:56 am:
===And you can judge for your self if the former communist is a conservative or liberal.
Of course, that’s not the question. Is he far left? Was he far left? Yeah. Pretty obviously. Is he far left is a different question and one pointed out in your own source.
And your quote is from that time before his views changed again begging the question. Wright’s views are different as well, as you know from the context of Jones quote, he’s not saying the US deserved it, he’s saying that injustice and violence leads to more injustice and violence and suggests that bombing alone won’t fix the problem. And 9 years later, we are now trying something other than bombing alone in Afghanistan.
A marxist or communist doesn’t promote green jobs in a capitalist system. It’s a rather funny claim that the guy calling on economic transformation through the market is a communist.
- Cincinnatus - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 12:02 pm:
- ArchPundit - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 11:56 am:
“A marxist or communist doesn’t promote green jobs in a capitalist system. It’s a rather funny claim that the guy calling on economic transformation through the market is a communist.”
You seem to leave out one very important sentence from my post:
“And you can judge for your self if the former communist is a conservative or liberal.”
Just sayin’…
- VanillaMan - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 12:03 pm:
This campaign is a mudbath, and both candidates are thoroughly coated in mud. Their partisan supporters on this blog somehow think their school yard chants about one being a liar or the other being a mob banker should satisfy those capable of looking beyond petty stupid political stunts.
Debates could help get this race out of the gutter.
- The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 12:05 pm:
=My post is an attempt to get the posters on this blog to engage in why Kirk has proposed seven debates, not to defend him in any way.=
Cincinnatus: Most on this blog not only know why, but actually could have even predicted this and the timing of same–without any “clues” from Kirk’s team.
=and are turning this blog into partisan hackery which reinforces some opinions expressed here that *Rich is being unfair in his betrayal of Kirk.*=
“Betrayal”, Cincinnatus? What drAma!
- VanillaMan - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 12:07 pm:
Folks who don’t understand why a candidate should avoid Van Jones are as blinded as folks who don’t understand why a candidate should avoid Tom Delay.
- Cincinnatus - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 12:09 pm:
The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 12:05 pm:
“Betrayal”, Cincinnatus?”
YOIKES! How about portrayal…
- Vole - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 12:12 pm:
“marijuana legalization advocates”
They are referring to William F. Buckley, no?
This guilt by association with left wingers worked really well for Palin and McCain.
Lame.
- (618) Democrat - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 12:12 pm:
@cincy 11:49
I could take your advice but I won’t.
People of your ilk make me laugh. The next time you feel the need to tell me how you think I should express myself don’t waste your time.
How you feel about what I post on here is meaningless to me. LOL
- ArchPundit - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 12:13 pm:
—-“And you can judge for your self if the former communist is a conservative or liberal.”
No one denies he’s a liberal. The question is he far left. If the argument is that Van Jones said and believed dumb things 9 years ago—fine. But that’s not the argument. The argument is that Van Jones is a crazy left winger and so if Alexi was at the same conference Alexi must be a crazy left winger. The problem is that Van Jones doesn’t appear to be a crazy left winger and so his presence at the event doesn’t make the point Kirk wanted to make.
One can argue that there hasn’t been enough time between his old views and new views, but then it’s an argument over when does someone legitimately change. Where is it between Van Jones and say David Horowitz that someone can claim to have legitimately changed their views.
- bored now - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 12:15 pm:
Responsa: i’m absolutely making a prediction (and an easy one, at that!). we can’t trust kirk and it’s much more likely that kirk is “exaggerating” his desire for 7 debates than not. i base my prediction on FACTS (i know, i know, you’d rather take his word for it): kirk wouldn’t answer questions from voters from taylorville inclined to support him *and* he has a proven pattern of making stuff up. no prudent person would take his word for it.
you’d have to be an idiot to think that just because i realize kirk’s a liar that i wouldn’t love for him to actually show up for seven debates. but there’s far too much proof to suggest that he won’t. if he won’t talk to possible supporters, why would he take questions from reporters who’d be more inclined to chew him up? personally, i think kirk’s too much of a coward, he just doesn’t expose himself to vulnerable situations.
i’m all for debates, the more the merrier! but understand that kirk won’t follow through here. he’ll use any excuse to blame alexi for kirk’s own failure to show up…
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 12:23 pm:
Is Tom Delay a commie, too? Real high level discussion here. Worthy of Fox and Friends.
- ArchPundit - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 12:23 pm:
===Folks who don’t understand why a candidate should avoid Van Jones are as blinded as folks who don’t understand why a candidate should avoid Tom Delay.
No, there are a ton of differences between the two cases. One is under indictment for campaign finance violations–money laundering–and is well known to the general public and disliked. Oh, and he flirts with weird political beliefs like birtherism.
The other is a guy that hardly anyone knows outside of political activists and has moderated his views and holds fairly liberal, but hardly radical ideas.
- The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 12:28 pm:
=personally, i think kirk’s too much of a coward, he just doesn’t expose himself to vulnerable situations.=
All depends, I suppose, on whether one believes that debates would provide Kirk and Giannoulias with opportunities to display weaknesses or srengths.
Taking bets, bored?
- bored now - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 1:16 pm:
sure. not a lot of risk of betting against a wuss who ran away from reporters through, what, a kitchen? kirk’s cowardice is documented.
alexi, otoh, has taken on the most powerful man in the state, the speaker, and won.
my money is definitely on the candidate that beat madigan…
- Louis G. Atsaves - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 1:17 pm:
Let me get this straight? Giannoulias is complaining about a call for 7 debates in different parts of the State? Giannoulias thinks that a call for 7 debates is “classless?”
The rapid fire response team over at Team Alexi fumbled that one pretty badly. Makes Giannoulias out as being fearful of debating.
Perhaps the debates will serve to allow this ugly campaign to emerge from the ugly bilateral mudslinging? Or is that too “classless” to consider?
I don’t get it.
- The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 1:23 pm:
I’d hate to say it, Louis, but I have a feeling that bored might be hoping that the seven debates will go about as well as that one “infamous” debate during the Primary–v. the anomaly it really was.
- dave - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 1:29 pm:
Let me get this straight? Giannoulias is complaining about a call for 7 debates in different parts of the State? Giannoulias thinks that a call for 7 debates is “classless?”
Nope… you don’t have it “straight” at all.
Good attempt at completely distorting what the Giannoulias said thought. Well done.
- Berkeley Bear - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 1:30 pm:
NetRoots Nation was also addressed by Dem Leader Harry Reid, Speaker Pelosi, President Obama (via tape), Al Franken, Steny Hoyer, Rep. Raul Gravijla and basically every other major player in the Democratic party. I guess that makes all of them all crazy lefties, too, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.
For Giannoulis its a no-brainer to go there - there’s a ton of money to be raised and these people represent the most active aspects of the Dem base, so if you make a good impression there’s a multiplier effect in terms of fundraising, campaign help, etc.
- Objective Dem - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 1:34 pm:
Louis,
My sense from reading the post is Alexi’s people thought Kirk was classless because Alexi’s staff approached Kirk about debates and rather than negotiate with them in good faith, Kirk grandstanded by publicly challenging Alexi to the 7 debates. I wouldn’t personally call it classless. Dishonorable seems more accurate.
- Cincinnatus - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 1:45 pm:
Here’s Plouffe’s take on his upcoming visit:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0710/Plouffe_Obamas_no_savior_in_midterm.html
- The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 1:47 pm:
Objective, isn’t that pretty standard for just about any race–i.e., the “dance” or negotiations leading up to the actual debates?
- Cheryl44 - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 1:47 pm:
Mark Kirk is *hardly* Abraham Lincoln.
- Objective Dem - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 2:19 pm:
I have no doubt that the “dance” over debate negotiations takes place all the time and grandstanding is standard practice, but it doesn’t make it honorable.
The original story doesn’t provide much detail but it looks like Kirk is presenting the idea to debate as his idea even though Alexi’s people presented it to him first.
- Responsa - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 2:31 pm:
==looks like Kirk is presenting the idea to debate as his idea even though Alexi’s people presented it to him first==
So, is this a 3rd grade or a 4th grade recess spat we are talking about?
- The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 2:37 pm:
Objective, this isn’t about Alexi’s “people” or Kirk’s “people”.
It’s about Alexi and Kirk–and the VOTERS of this State.
- bored now - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 2:43 pm:
right. it’s about a proposal supposedly made by mark kirk, who’s demonstrated an unwillingness to answer questions from voters downstate (who are inclined to support him, or somebody much more conservative), and whether we should take it (the proposal) seriously.
because we can’t trust anything that comes out of mark kirk’s mouth. either he makes it up or finds a way to exaggerate it beyond recognition…
- Objective Dem - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 2:44 pm:
Responda,
Do you like dealing with people who take your ideas and present them as their own? I don’t know many adults who do.
Frankly that type of behavior in a political setting results in people not trusting you and therefore becoming more ineffective.
- bluestatedad - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 2:58 pm:
If there are debates it’s important to have fact checkers ready because Kirk lies about many things–not just his military record or his rescue in the lake. He lies about matters of public policy too (health care, the war in Iraq, etc.)
I agree with the comment above–it’s important to record Kirk because he will lie about anything. Up until now, he’s just relied on people forgetting his lies and not holding him accountable.
Now that’s changed and that’s good for Giannoulias.
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 3:01 pm:
–Do you like dealing with people who take your ideas and present them as their own?–
Depends. It’s a very good tactic if it gets your idea over the hump to your benefit.
Or, if you want to screw the no-original-thought guy, you give him a diabolically bad idea and let him do the talking.
- Responsa - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 3:19 pm:
Objective Dem– Every top tier election in memory has had some form of televised debate, has it not? Before that, the debates between candidates were presented on radio or as they traveled from town to town. If candidates debating the issues were a new, novel, revolutionary, never-thought-of- before development, then whomever invented it first and should get credit for the idea might be worth discussing. But as you are attempting to present it here—not so much. Do you really think the issue of “who suggested some Kirk-Alexi debates first” is going to capture peoples’ imaginations and affect voters’ decisions in the booth? I sure don’t. Of all the bizarre manufactured kerfuffles between the 2 campaigns this one truly takes the cake.
- Cincinnatus - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 4:02 pm:
- Cheryl44 - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 1:47 pm:
“Mark Kirk is *hardly* Abraham Lincoln.”
The question is, is Alexi Stephen Douglas, who won the election…
- Objective Dem - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 4:27 pm:
Responda,
I agree that who originated the idea of a debate is not a real issue. I initially commented on the issue to correct Louis’s mischaracterization of the issue. Since then I have stood by my characterization of Kirk’s actions as dishonorable. Its not as dishonorable as being warned by the military to stop political activity on duty. And it isn’t even close to being as dishonorable as telling the Chinese to be wary of buying US treasuries. But it is still dishonorable.
- Quinn T. Sential - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 4:45 pm:
I wasn’t aware that debates were the subject of “litigation”, and always assumed they were scheduled on the basis of “negotiation”.
Is the GALEXI camp suggesting that Kirk is trying to sue them to secure the maximum number and prescribed schedule of the debates?
- bored now - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 4:54 pm:
lol, cincinnatus, that *is* the question. great response…
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 8:11 pm:
Does anyone really believe AG’s camp thought last week, Gee maybe we should do some debates with Kirk and asked to sit down and disscuss?
Negotiations have probably been going on for weeks/months. Alexi’s response is weak and he sounds scared.
- Dr Kilovolt - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 8:25 pm:
In 1858, there was no radio, TV, or 24-hour news cycle. Sure, there was probably newspaper coverage, but nobody outside of a few press writers sat through all 7 debates…they were held around the state so that downstaters could see the candidates in person.
Outside of the pretensions of a historical reenactment (You, Rep. Kirk, are no Abe Lincoln) seven debates for a senate seat in this day and age are ludicrous. What on Earth would they talk about?
I don’t see any reason to hold more than three. Perhaps one for domestic issues, one for foreign policy, and one set aside for nothing but personal attacks. (rimshot, please)
Oh, and I can’t wait to see Dold and Seals go at it.
- Responsa - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 8:43 pm:
==What on Earth would they talk about?==
That, Dr.Kilovolt, is one stunning statement.
- Hubba Bubba - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 9:44 pm:
@Louis G. Atsaves - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 1:17 pm:
“I don’t get it.”
truer words have never been typed by a conservative such a yourself
@Anonymous - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 8:11 pm:
“Alexi’s response is weak and he sounds scared.”
funny. alot of peeps were thinking the same thing about mark kirk’s bad abraham lincoln impression.
why not just come to an agreement on the debate formats and announce it together like adults instead of putting out this childish nah-nah-boo-boo press release?
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 10:29 pm:
Hub Bub, you miss the point. It seems an agreement on format and whatnot is not agreeable…isn’t that what debate is all about??
- Louis G. Atsaves - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 10:51 pm:
So asking for 7 debates is “dishonorable” according to an Alexi supporter?
I still don’t get it. What is all the squawking about? For Alexi’s rapid response team to be effective, they have to make a point. Complaining about 7 debates as a public proposal as being “classless” makes no sense at all.
- Louis G. Atsaves - Tuesday, Jul 27, 10 @ 10:51 pm:
So asking for 7 debates is “dishonorable” according to an Alexi supporter?
I still don’t get it. What is all the squawking about? For Alexi’s rapid response team to be effective, they have to make a point. Complaining about 7 debates as a public proposal as being “classless” makes no sense at all.
- bored now - Wednesday, Jul 28, 10 @ 6:50 am:
louis, the fact that you think alexi would be afraid to debate someone who we KNOW will screw up (we’ll catch kirk in another lie, or he’ll overexaggerate something he supposedly did, etc) demonstrates a severe lack of intelligence. of course alexi’s supporters want as many debates as possible, but no serious person thinks kirk will debate alexi seven times. kirk RUNS away from the press, the coward. he refuses to take questions from conservatives. it’s absurd to take this proposal seriously. he’s lying to us! he’ll run from this, as well…
- Louis G. Atsaves - Wednesday, Jul 28, 10 @ 7:05 am:
bored, the debates will show Alexi tripping and stumbling and proving that he is an empty suit. Alexi also has been hiding from the press, a fact everyone tries to ignore around here.
The debates will allow issues to emerge from the mud slinging and name calling. What is so “dishonorable” or “classless” about that?
- bored now - Wednesday, Jul 28, 10 @ 8:36 am:
heh. speaker madigan underestimated alexi, too. he’s been mad about it every since. it’s hard to take claims that alexi will be “tripping and stumbling” during the debates since kirk is highly likely to severely limit their number and, in those which do occur, EVERYONE will be waiting for mark kirk to tell another whopper! alexi will impress and kirk will lie. the press will overlook the former and focus entirely on the latter…