* So, did Mark Kirk just flip-flop on guns? Yesterday, Kirk told reports that he supports the US Supreme Court’s ruling striking down Chicago’s handgun ban…
… Kirk said he supports the “Heller decision.” That is a 2008 ruling that struck down the District of Columbia’s handgun ban and was used by the court in cutting down Chicago’s law.
“You know I’ve backed a number of measures to reduce gun violence,” Kirk said. “I look forward to looking at the details of how this turns out. … I think the critical thing to do here is to make sure that we don’t end up in endless, expensive litigation where the people of Chicago don’t know what the law is.” […]
“I very much strongly believe in the legal theory that the Bill of Rights attaches to you personally, and that no government — federal, state or local — can interfere with those rights, which is why I support that decision,” Kirk said. “But within that, I think there’s room.”
Kirk has always been a gun control guy in the past and has been endorsed by the Brady Campaign. But the Brady Campaign hasn’t really criticized the ruling, instead seeing it as an affirmation that gun control policies could still be implemented…
“Chicago can amend its gun laws to comply with this ruling while continuing to have strong, comprehensive and Constitutional gun laws, just as Washington D.C. has done. After the Heller decision, at least 240 legal challenges have been brought to existing gun laws, nearly all of which have been summarily dismissed. There is nothing in today’s decision that should prevent any state or local government from successfully defending, maintaining, or passing, sensible, strong gun laws.”
So, Kirk appears to be consistent with that view. Giannoulias, however, says he opposes the court’s ruling.
* I sure wish we had more of this quote…
Kimberly Vertolli divorced Congressman Kirk last year and in a recent interview with Chicago Magazine, Vertolli said Kirk was working with an aide who was driving his campaign policies further to the right. Kirk today dismissed Vertolli’s statements.
KIRK: She was concerned about a couple of my votes and in the end, those are my votes. Kimberly and I are close friends and allies. I support her.
That didn’t really answer the question.
* The question of Israel has often been a major issue in Illinois US Senate races. As the legend goes, Republican Charles Percy lost his 1984 Reagan landslide year race to Paul Simon partly because Percy strayed too far from his former support of the Jewish state while Simon eagerly embraced it.
Much of Mark Kirk’s foreign policy speech yesterday revolved around his well-known steadfast support for Israel. Alexi Giannoulias even praises Kirk and says “Me too”…
“Congressman Kirk has been great on Israel,” Giannoulias said at a Town Hall at Ann Sathers restaurant last month. “If you look at my positions on Israel, we are essentially the exact same. I believe they are our strongest ally in the region. I believe in the safety and security of Israel, especially dealing with external threats like a nuclear-armed Iran. I think we need to continue to show our unwavering partnership with the only democracy in the region. I think Kirk and I agree on essentially every single element of that relationship.”
Kirk says he has the experience and leadership abilities that pro-Israel folks can trust. Don Rose sums it up pretty well…
Political consultant Don Rose said Kirk might get a higher percentage of the Jewish vote because of the friends he has won over on the North Shore in the last 10 years, “But that may not necessarily transfer to Lincoln Park Jews and Hyde Park Jews. If Giannoulias loses Jewish voters, it won’t be for foreign policy reasons. It will be because they feel he’s not ‘kosher’ in other ways.”
This morning, Kirk’s campaign claimed Giannoulias backed out of a planned debate on Israel and Middle Eastern policy…
“As Iran continues its pursuit of nuclear weapons and terrorists threaten Israel from Gaza and Lebanon, our next U.S. Senator should not be afraid to stand up for our strongest democratic ally in the Middle East,” Congressman Kirk said. “Treasurer Giannoulias’ decision to back out of the campaign’s premier pro-Israel forum is disappointing and concerning. Voters deserve a thoughtful series of debates and forums to discuss the complex economic and foreign policy challenges before us. I would hope Treasurer Giannoulias agrees.”
The Protect Our Heritage PAC is the chief sponsor of the candidates’ forum. The Giannoulias campaign claims that it never confirmed the candidate would attend, but the PAC sent out a press release saying the candidate agreed to the forum months ago and that the date was confirmed with the staff…
Although both candidates for the U.S. Senate seat, Congressman Mark S. Kirk and (R- IL 10th) and current Illinois Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias (D) had agreed to participate in the forum several months ago, the Giannoulias campaign announced today that it had “previous commitments.” (Last March Giannoulias personally accepted the invitation to participate in the forum and his campaign confirmed his availability on the forum date.)
The PAC has contributed to Kirk’s campaigns in the past, including $5,000 just last year, so it probably wasn’t seen as a neutral party.
* Meanwhile, I forgot to post this earlier, but WBEZ talked with Congressman Bobby Rush after Rush said he wasn’t “sold” on Alexi Giannoulias.
On speakerphone from his Chicago office, Congressman Rush said, “It’s appalling to me that at this point in time there is no African American senator.” Noting that Illinois U.S. Senator Roland Burris came in “under conditions that were not the best,” the congressman vowed to “not rest comfortably until there is an African American in the Senate – at least one.”
Addressing his comments on Thursday, Rush said he does recognize Alexi Giannoulias as the Democratic nominee. But he said he wants to “have a meeting with him and discuss what his policies are, what his issues are,” and how the two Democrats could work together in Congress.
Although the Giannoulias campaign could no doubt provide examples to the contrary, Rush states that the young Democrat hasn’t talked about a number of what he called “gut level issues.” These include: jobs, crime, food deserts, business opportunities, entrepreneurship and home foreclosure. “What are his positions?” Rush asked in an exasperated tone. The congressman said he doesn’t think Senator Durbin, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, or President Obama have quizzed Giannoulias on those issues. “These are not Bobby Rush questions. These are black community questions.”
If, coming out of a meeting with Giannoulias, Rush is still not satisfied, will he endorse Kirk, or the Green Party candidate, LeAlan Jones? “I am not going to even go there right now,” Rush replied. “I would be shocked if [Giannoulias] didn’t come up with the right answers to those questions.”
Bottom line for Rush: He is “not ready to jump to Giannoulias’ candidacy” before meeting with him. “I’m not going to be stampeded into taking a position on a candidate.”
Translation: I’m Bobby Rush, darnit, and I want some attention, but I’m a Democrat and I’ll be with the program at the end.
* Related…
* Phil Kerpen and Joe Calomino: Illinois could have big lame-duck say
* Illinois Senate Race Goes Loony Tunes
* Attacks, ads heat up Illinois Senate race
* New Ill. Senate campaign ad accuses Kirk of lying
* Kirk attacks Giannoulias after ad in Senate race
* Kirk lays out foreign policy views as Giannoulias attacks
* Wall Street Opens Wallet for GOP Senatorial Candidates
* Giannoulias Ad Calls Kirk ‘Desperate’
* Durbin Not Happy With Comments About Giannoulias
* Green Party’s Senate Pick Explains Tax Lien
- Living in Oklahoma - Tuesday, Aug 10, 10 @ 11:58 am:
Mark Kirk. The ultimate Political opportunists.
- corvax - Tuesday, Aug 10, 10 @ 12:09 pm:
Rush is on the sidelines? He was at the 8/5 Obama event for Alexi. Was that out of respect for his erstwhile primary opponent, the POTUS? I had assumed he was already on the bus.
- Bill - Tuesday, Aug 10, 10 @ 12:14 pm:
Right on, Bobby!
Power to the people!
Up against the wall…..
- Cincinnatus - Tuesday, Aug 10, 10 @ 12:15 pm:
Why did Alexi back out of the Middle East Debate? Is he afraid of Kirk?
Discuss.
- DuPage Dave - Tuesday, Aug 10, 10 @ 12:17 pm:
Where does Bobby Rush get the idea that anybody cares who Bobby Rush may or may not be supporting? He is as irrelevant as irrelevant can be.
- shore - Tuesday, Aug 10, 10 @ 12:17 pm:
There’s absolutely no excuse for Alexi to blow off a jewish event in northbrook in the middle of august. It’s a slap in the face to the jewish community and I think he can kiss that vote goodbye. With all due respect to mr. rose, the congressman was the 3rd leading non presidential canidate in israel fundraising in the last cycle, ahead of all but 2 of 535 members of the house and senate. That money is not all coming from glencoe.
- Cincinnatus - Tuesday, Aug 10, 10 @ 12:28 pm:
- shore - Tuesday, Aug 10, 10 @ 12:17 pm:
“There’s absolutely no excuse for Alexi to blow off a jewish event in northbrook in the middle of august.”
There might not be any excuse for Alexi’s despicable blow of of this debate, especially since he lied to the organizers earlier this year. But there certainly are plenty of reasons for him to blow it off, fear of having to think on his feet in the foreign policy area chief among them. I look forward to the Alexi supporter’s spin on this story. It should be interesting.
- shore - Tuesday, Aug 10, 10 @ 12:36 pm:
I doubt it cincinattus. Chicago Tonight has had 2 straight months of slobbering over the blago trial. Last night was another ridiculous intellectually bankrupt segment about a day where nothing happened. Meanwhile they ignore the issues on the campaign like foreign policy, which in case they’ve forgotten is a rare big part of a senator’s portfolio. Alexi apparently couldn’t handle a debate where he would be asked questions about what he would do as a senator beyond playing basketball with obama.
- Wumpus - Tuesday, Aug 10, 10 @ 12:39 pm:
I am waiting for Kirk to put blame on Alexi for the Greece Financial Mess.
Alexi has close ties to Greece, home of the worst fianncial disasters of the modern era!
Can Alexi cmoplain of someting else besides Kirk inflating his military record? It is stupid to do, but he still served.
- Cincinnatus - Tuesday, Aug 10, 10 @ 12:47 pm:
Nice attempt at deflection, Wumpus. Why do you think Alexi lied about attending the debate?
- Plutocrat03 - Tuesday, Aug 10, 10 @ 12:56 pm:
jobs, crime, food deserts, business opportunities, entrepreneurship and home foreclosure…
Don’t you think those are issues for all constituents?
- shake and bake - Tuesday, Aug 10, 10 @ 12:58 pm:
Bobby Rush has his hand up and wants to be greased. How pathetic is that?
- Wumpus - Tuesday, Aug 10, 10 @ 1:02 pm:
Cincinatus humor=/deflection.
Kirk, while some may see them as outrageous has numerous points that he is hiting Alexi. Alexi keeps going at the same lame issue.
- Niles Township - Tuesday, Aug 10, 10 @ 1:27 pm:
I have to disagree with Don Rose. I know Jews that live up north in Glencoe, Highland Park, Deerfield, Northbrook, Wheeling, Buffalo Grove, Skokie, Morton Grove, Evanston and in the city in Lakeview and Rogers Park. I talk politics with just about everybody I meet. It is something I enjoy. As a result, I’ve talked about this race with hundreds of Jews in these areas. So far, I have heard of overwhelming support for Kirk, two supports for Alexi and a few that aren’t really sure. Granted, I don’t know Hyde Park Jews the way Mr. Rose does, but then again, how many are left in that neighborhood. We are talking hundreds, maybe a thousand. There are 275,000 Jews in the Chicago area. If this election is close, Kirk winning the Jewish vote could be the deciding factor.
- Amalia - Tuesday, Aug 10, 10 @ 1:32 pm:
Alexi opposes the Court’s ruling? what an idiot. kirk is
being consistent. in Heller Scalia specifically stated that
things could be regulated. the only question is how
far. the election question is, are the gun nuts smart enough
to realize that Kirk is the lesser of two evils on the gun
question. even Illinois lobbyists believe that there can
be some regulation, see long threads when the McDonald
decision came down re regulating machine guns etc.
- VanillaMan - Tuesday, Aug 10, 10 @ 1:40 pm:
After the Supreme Court ruling, it is understandable that politicians are trying to find the new status quo. There is going to be some flipping and some flopping, and some swinging from left to right to center, and back again. Especially from a guy without a backbone.
Giannoulais is so 2008. Kirk is so 2010. Which way you want to go with this issue, you are going to find your base covered by Kirk. If you don’t like that, well then, you can vote for the young fogie who looked like a shoo-in back in 2008.
- MrJM - Tuesday, Aug 10, 10 @ 1:56 pm:
Isn’t that pretty much the translation of everything Bobby Rush says?
– MrJM
- Cincinnatus - Tuesday, Aug 10, 10 @ 2:09 pm:
Sorry, Wumpus. My snark-o-meter needs some grease today…
;-{)>
- shore - Tuesday, Aug 10, 10 @ 2:37 pm:
the congressman voted against the bill today to support bureaucrats that I think he said on this blog earlier this week he’d support.
some consistency please.
- Cincinnatus - Tuesday, Aug 10, 10 @ 3:06 pm:
“Kirk plans to use this [special election victory to arrest Democrat lame duck session shenanigans] as a political issue. He wants to electrify his support by saying that a lame duck Congress, especially if the majority party incurs major losses in November, as many analysts now predict, will be desperate to pass as many measures as they can before losing power (or some power) to the Republicans. Kirk, the argument goes, would stand as a check against these desperate measures.
Will the issue work for Kirk? It certainly won’t hurt, that’s clear. But like much else in politics, the circumstances as we near election day on November 2 might end up being the most decisive factor.”
From:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/illinois-decision-makes-two-senate-elections
- bored now - Tuesday, Aug 10, 10 @ 3:45 pm:
i see that the kirk cult doesn’t understand politics. no surprise. their saint struggles at it, as well.
sorry, kirk needed to be a strong front-runner to dictate the terms of the debates. if he wants a series of debates, he’ll have to sit down with alexi’s campaign and negotiate. so far, no word that has occurred.
which, of course, is no surprise. we all know that kirk is an intellectual lightweight, afraid to answer questions from simple voters downstate, let alone questions in debates! which candidate ran cowardly through a kitchen when faced with questions?
let’s face it, mark kirk isn’t going to debate anyone, he’s too scared. but we always knew — and i predicted it here — that he’d try to blame alexi for his cowardice. just like he lies about everything else.
mark kirk is an embarrassment to republicans, to illinois, to educated voters everywhere!
- Cincinnatus - Tuesday, Aug 10, 10 @ 3:53 pm:
bored,
What reason other than being just plain chicken did Alexi lie about debating on Middle East issues?
- Norman - Tuesday, Aug 10, 10 @ 3:55 pm:
Perhaps Giannoulias finds it unbecoming to pander on behalf of a foreign nuclear power just to pull some votes. Sometimes you have to renounce power and return to your farm (or bank), doncha know, Cinci? He’s got my vote for a stoic sort of integrity. Northbrook won’t be happy with anything more vertebrate than a senatrix who plays Charlie McCarthy to Netanyahu’s Edgar Bergen.
- Cincinnatus - Tuesday, Aug 10, 10 @ 4:06 pm:
Chilling poll results for Democrats in toss-up Senate races. Sampling is small in each individual state, with a large margin of error. Kirk’s up by 1 in their results.
http://pos.org/2010/08/us-senate-battleground-survey-conducted/
- Cincinnatus - Tuesday, Aug 10, 10 @ 4:09 pm:
Norman,
Good to see your support (or lack thereof) for the only free country in the Middle East. Should we assume Alexi follows your lead, or is he afraid to answer?
As for his stoic integrity, it certainly showed when he lied about attending the debate.
- A.B. - Tuesday, Aug 10, 10 @ 4:16 pm:
bored -
Stop grasping at straws.
The reality of politics is that Giannoulias is so far behind in the money world he is screwed going into the this election. He knows Kirk has more and more money rolling in and he needs to work some PR miracles to win this one.
- Norman - Tuesday, Aug 10, 10 @ 4:43 pm:
Cinci sez: “Should we assume Alexi follows your lead, or is he afraid to answer?”
How weird that you invoke fear as a likely motivation.
- 47th Ward - Tuesday, Aug 10, 10 @ 5:30 pm:
Speaking of lies, isn’t there a link on the Dome thingy up there to the right that says “Kirk says he’ll likely support $26B jobs bill?”
He voted no today. Thanks for nothing Congressman Flip-Flop.
Can’t. Beleive. Anything. He. Says.
- Mark S. - Tuesday, Aug 10, 10 @ 5:40 pm:
Mark Kirk: Hypocrite & flip-flopper extraordinaire. How is he going to explain that he voted against teachers & education???
On Monday, Republican Senate candidate and Congressman Mark Kirk held a press conference, telling reporters he would support a $26 billion jobs bill that would funnel money back to cash-strapped states and prevent thousands of teachers from being laid off.
Fortunately for teachers, the Senate Amendment to H.R. 1586, Education Jobs and Medicaid Assistance Act passed 247-161 Tuesday–but Kirk voted against it.
- bored now - Tuesday, Aug 10, 10 @ 9:15 pm:
Cincinnatus: feel free to provide evidence that alexi confirmed that he would participate. i see none of that. i know that you don’t have the experience i do in participating in debate planning, but i did assume a modicum of political savvy. did i overestimate you? (if so, my apologies.)
A.B.: it’s cute that you think this race is over. is this your first election?
and: come on, guys. kirk’s already proven that he’s a pathetic excuse for a truth-teller. we’ve caught him in lie after lie. it’s beyond time to be surprised by his behavior. whether it’s desperation or an unnatural need to be loved (ala blagojevich), we can’t really act surprised anymore…
- Cincinnatus - Tuesday, Aug 10, 10 @ 10:35 pm:
Norman,
Surprised you would use a biblical reference to Purim, where the Jews were delivered from the slavery of the Babylonians and Persians.
- Norman - Wednesday, Aug 11, 10 @ 3:27 am:
That’s because you—surprisingly—select to take the Biblical setting at face value. History tells us of no such slavery, and by all accounts Jews in Babylonia then constituted an urban élite and to this day regard their Talmud as “definitive” over the rusticated Palestinian version.