25 Comments - Davey Boy Smithe - Monday, Aug 9, 10 @ 9:13 am: Not a bad ad by Alexi. I found the St. Petersburg Times a little strange, but the the PolitFact signage made it alright. One thing that seems confusing to me is that Alexi doesn’t accept money from corporate lobbyists, but he accepts it from State lobbyists. - Skeeter - Monday, Aug 9, 10 @ 9:37 am: The Alexi thing is Ok at best. Seems like two different messages are in one ad. Both get a bit lost. The good stuff is not highlighted like it should. - raising kane - Monday, Aug 9, 10 @ 9:49 am: Well, Skeeter, when the good stuff is that weak you do what you can. - Cincinnatus - Monday, Aug 9, 10 @ 9:50 am: - Davey Boy Smithe - Monday, Aug 9, 10 @ 9:13 am: “Not a bad ad by Alexi. I found the St. Petersburg Times a little strange, but the the PolitFact signage made it alright. One thing that seems confusing to me is that Alexi doesn’t accept money from corporate lobbyists, but he accepts it from State lobbyists.” I agree with you that the ad is mildly effective. Your point about lobbying should be explored further by the media. How does Alexi square the circle about his fundraising trip to Canada to accept money from the trial lawyers? Rich? - dave - Monday, Aug 9, 10 @ 10:09 am: How does Alexi square the circle about his fundraising trip to Canada to accept money from the trial lawyers? Rich? Easily… he didn’t raise money from PACs or corporate lobbyists in Canada. He raised money from individuals. - well - Monday, Aug 9, 10 @ 10:16 am: “Easily… he didn’t raise money from PACs or corporate lobbyists in Canada. He raised money from individuals.” That, right there, is the fundamental flaw in Alexi’s logic. What’s worse? Raising $50,000 through max-out contributions from every partner in a law firm, or taking $10,000 from the firm’s PAC? Since corporate PACs are funded by employee contributions, the ultimate source of the money is the same. Alexi’s claim that he’s somehow ethically superior because he cuts out the middleman is absurd. - Skeeter - Monday, Aug 9, 10 @ 10:17 am: Actually, Raising Kane, there is enough material in this for about six good ads. It says something about the ILGOP that they can look at Kirk;s statement that unemployment is not a problem and see no issue. That separation from the way the rest of us live is going to be a major problem for the GOP. It reminds me of Bill Clinton telling people that he feels their pain. The ILGOP doesn’t feel the pain of anybody but the ultra rich who might have to pay a few more dollars in taxes. - well - Monday, Aug 9, 10 @ 10:20 am: “It says something about the ILGOP that they can look at Kirk;s statement that unemployment is not a problem and see no issue.” What Alexi always conveniently leaves out when he brings that quote up, Skeeter, is that Kirk said that in June of 2008, when the national unemployment rated stood at 5.5% Check for yourself: http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS14000000 - Team America - Monday, Aug 9, 10 @ 10:26 am: That’s correct, Well. It’s not even something new that Alexi is peddling. From the Kirk for Senate site back in May: Ad Announcer: “Then, after six straight months of job loss, Kirk voted against extending unemployment benefits saying unemployment isn’t a big issue.” Fact: The vote the Giannoulias campaign references is from June of 2008. Below is the national unemployment rate for the six months prior. June, 2008 – 5.5% May, 2008 – 5.4% April, 2008 – 5.0% March, 2008 – 5.1% February, 2008 – 4.8% January, 2008 – 5.0% The Giannoulias campaign is factually wrong. Unemployment had increased for two months prior to the June unemployment vote, not six. At the time of the vote, unemployment in Kirk’s congressional district stood at only 5.5%. Additionally, Kirk voted against the legislation because it would have allowed people who had been employed for as little as two weeks to claim taxpayer-funded unemployment benefits. - Louis G. Atsaves - Monday, Aug 9, 10 @ 10:27 am: The last part of Alexi’s message was rushed and lost in that ad. Otherwise, at C+. - Cincinnatus - Monday, Aug 9, 10 @ 10:47 am: Thanks Team America. You saved me having to dig up those very statistics. Perhaps, at that time, Kirk was correct in his analysis since the problem at that time was the profligate spending undertaken by the Democrats since they assumed control of Congress in 2006. Many argue that the biggest failure of the Bush administration was in the war efforts in AfPak and Iraq. I think Bush failed the nation by not vetoing spending bills going all the way back to 2003 when his tax initiatives took hold. Lesser deficits and spending may have buffered the US from the worse aspects of the housing bubble bursting. If the Democrats would have supported Bush’s proposals to reform Fannie and Freddie when Bush made them in late 2005, that would surely helped, too. - Skeeter - Monday, Aug 9, 10 @ 10:49 am: Good point, Cincy. George W. Bush was just a poor victim, completely controlled by those Democrats in Congress. - well - Monday, Aug 9, 10 @ 10:57 am: “Good point, Cincy. George W. Bush was just a poor victim, completely controlled by those Democrats in Congress. ” So, Skeeter, do you think Giannoulias is being intellectually honest when he points to a two year old quote made during a time when the national economic conditions were very different? - wordslinger - Monday, Aug 9, 10 @ 10:57 am: Alexi’s ad is kind of weak. How about this: “While volunteer American soliders — some of them teenagers — are sacrficing for us and giving the last full measure of devotion in Asian wars, Mark Kirk has been flitting about from hotel ballroom to hotel ballroom bragging — and lying — about his combat service. How dare he? Where’s his sense of decency?” - Cincinnatus - Monday, Aug 9, 10 @ 10:58 am: Skeeter, Isn’t that a tremendously naive interpretation of my comments? Bush was no victim, he was complicit in the over-spending and over-regulation by the Congress during his tenure. That includes both Republican and Democratic Congresses. The only real rationalization I can envision other than being a big spender in his gut is that he believed in not rocking the boat so that he could accomplish his national security agenda, which has been embraced by the Obama administration after Obama’s campaign rhetoric saying Bush was wrong in this area. - bored now - Monday, Aug 9, 10 @ 11:18 am: Davey Boy Smithe: state lobbyists can’t “lobby” federal officials (without registering, of course), so there’s no conflict of interest (perceived or otherwise)… - bored now - Monday, Aug 9, 10 @ 11:21 am: Team America: it just goes to show that mark kirk exhibited the same bad judgment wrt unemployment as he did with WMDs. which is what i’ve been saying all along: mark kirk has *really* bad judgment. i dunno why y’all wanted him to be your congressman, but who would want a political lightweight with a proven track record of failed judgment as their senator? certainly not i… - Conservative Veteran - Monday, Aug 9, 10 @ 11:35 am: George W. Bush wasn’t a victim of Democrats. While Republicans controlled Congress, Bush signed budgets that included large spending increases. In 2004, the Depts. of HHS, Education, and Energy receieved at least 22% more than they received in ‘01. Bush was too liberal, and no conservative should like him. - Team Sleep - Monday, Aug 9, 10 @ 11:40 am: At the time, unemployment wasn’t a big deal. What am I missing? Unemployment numbers two summers ago weren’t even half of what they are now - and even less than half when one considers how unemployment figures are often UNDER-reported due to non-claims. As with any ad, this isn’t put in context. People lambasted Senator McCain in October 2008 for saying the fundamentals of our economy are strong. I would argue that, 22 months later, maybe he wasn’t so off. The other portion of the ad that was off - at least to me - was the scene showing Alexi in a classroom. He looked very uncomfortable. That may be nitpicking, but he looked as though he wanted to be anywhere but a classroom. - bored now - Monday, Aug 9, 10 @ 12:32 pm: i guess you’re missing the optics here. probably never good to say that unemployment isn’t a big deal. republicans (and i do mean republicans outside of illinois, because illinois did miss the reagan revolution, and there’s only a handful of peeps here fully indoctrinated into the conservative movement) tend to be good at identifying optics as important (democrats a lot less so). but this is a weird case where the partisans have switched strengths just going to show that illinois is different! - D.P. Gumby - Monday, Aug 9, 10 @ 1:48 pm: The Ill Repub use of the Dan Hynes ads may be legal violation of copyright. If they are running complete ad that would exceed fair use and Hynes could send cease and desist. Just cuz politics and Repubs have first amend right to say same thing, doesn’t mean they can steal the entire package of the way someone else said it even by showing bug at bottom. - Will County Woman - Monday, Aug 9, 10 @ 9:22 pm: D.P. Gumby, Why would or should Dan Hynes care at this point? The Harold Washington tape footage is not Hynes’ property. it is in essence public property. I recall reading on this blog that Ryan/Faewell used a radio version of the Harold Washington statement on Quinn against Quinn in their battle for the sec. of state office. - The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Monday, Aug 9, 10 @ 11:27 pm: Dear Lord, don’t even get me started. That’s the best that the Kirk Campaign can do in response? Repeating the “thoughtful” talking point and denying that Alexi’s on the offense with this one. Oh, wait…maybe that’s not a bad idea after all. Heaven only knows what controversies would have started, and self-inlicted damage would have been realized, if more had been said. zzzzzzzzzzzzz - The REAL Anonymous fka Anonymous - Monday, Aug 9, 10 @ 11:33 pm: Please, PLEASE see if at least Dan Proft will come to work for you. “Controversial”, I know, but at least you’d have a fighting chance–though you might lose a strong advocate on the airwaves–whose contribution, of course, the Kirk Campaign seems to refuse to acknowledge anyway. So there. - D.P. Gumby - Tuesday, Aug 10, 10 @ 11:12 am: WCW–Whether Hynes would want to is a different question. And, Repub are free to do their own ad using the Harold footage, what would be copyright issue is the compilation of the whole Hynes ad…it’s copying the whole rather than quoting an excerpt. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.