Sam Nunn and Richard Lugar did their best to make sure that our next generation never faces nuclear war. I don’t remember them saying that Bill Clinton or George W. Bush wanted North Korea to have nuclear weapons.
Really? You don’t recall him saying off the mark things ever before? The point is that he’s incredibly passionate about the issue and got a little ahead of his skis and walked it back It was the thoughtful move
Kirk is going to make it easier to unseat him. Now, if he was on the other side, all would be forgiven. For reference, I point to Dick Durbin. He, too, has made some intemperate remarks for which he had to “apologize” and “walk back”. But, as he is blue in a blue state, he he has not had to pay much of a price. Kirk, OTOH, will likely lose his seat once the campaign gets going and these remarks hit the airwaves on a loop.
We all know Kirk lover to run his mouth, and his tall tales about his military experience provided extra comedy last election. But, lately, there’s been an ugliness to many of his comments. A Rush Limbaugh like hyperbole. Sure, he walks them back, but we know there will be a next time, and a next, and etc…
Kirk’s people were terrified David Hoffman would be the nominee. They said so to multiple friends of mine. Unfortunately, the Hoffman train timed out just as it was picking up speed (Hoffman had picked up 20 points in about 10 days) because the election that year was ridiculously early in a huge miscalculation (first Tuesday in Feb.). Had it been even a week later, Hoffman wins, Kirk loses general and this is all academic.
–Now if he was on the other side, all would be forgiven.–
Pavlovs Victim Bell is going off.
Have all “forgiven” Durbin for those remarks? I think not. ===
All was forgiven - he’s still in office, isn’t he? By that I meant Kirk’s comments will likely lead to his defeat. Durbin’s didn’t. Pretty simple statement, IMO. But, I know it’s fun to read into things stuff that ain’t there.