Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Rauner to close Stateville’s roundhouse
Next Post: “Their minds or their bodies are too broken for them to work”
Posted in:
* This one’s gonna stir things up a bit…
While a stroke by no means disqualifies anyone from public office, we cannot tiptoe around the issue of Kirk’s recovery and readiness. His health is a fundamental component of this race — a hotly contested matchup that could return control of the U.S. Senate to Democrats.
We aren’t physicians; Kirk’s doctor attests to his good cognitive health.
But we are voters. And our reluctant judgment is that, due to forces beyond his control, Kirk no longer can perform to the fullest the job of a U.S. senator. We are unable to endorse him for another six-year term.
Whoa.
* More…
We endorse Duckworth with the expectation that she stay focused on cost cutting as the nation navigates a debt crisis that much of official Washington recklessly ignores. We endorse her with the expectation she will challenge her party’s leaders. We endorse her with the realization that Illinois already has one fierce Democratic loyalist in the Senate, Dick Durbin. If she’s elected, it will be Duckworth’s job to also represent the many Republican and independent Illinoisans who won’t have voted for her but who deserve a voice.
*** UPDATE *** From Kirk’s campaign manager Kevin Artl…
A low-blow and cheap shot by the Chicago Tribune that is not based on fact or reality. The indisputable truth is that while Cong. Duckworth has been rated as one of the least effective members of Congress, Senator Mark Kirk has been one of the most successful. Kirk created bi-partisan support to keep the Export-Import Bank open, saving over 40,000 Illinois jobs, he secured millions in funding for law enforcement to crack down on gang violence and he is viewed as a national leader when he bucked his own party and said he could not support Donald Trump. Illinois families want results–not rhetoric–and that’s what Sen. Kirk delivers.
Maybe if Kirk had talked about Speaker Madigan instead of foreign policy at the editorial board debate he would’ve been endorsed. (No snark.)
* Related…
* Mitt Romney headlining fundraiser for Sen. Mark Kirk in Chicago
* Letterman coming to town for Duckworth fundraiser
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 9:55 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Rauner to close Stateville’s roundhouse
Next Post: “Their minds or their bodies are too broken for them to work”
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
“We endorse her with the expectation that she will vote as a Republican.”/s
Comment by G'Kar Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 10:02 am
The tronclodytes at their fact-based, logical, coherent and persuasive best:
“We don’t have any reason to think that Kirk can’t do the job because of his stroke, but we think Kirk can’t do the job because of his stroke.”
Now beyond self-parody.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 10:03 am
Why didn’t they just issue a non-endorsement? What in her background indicates she’ll do anything that the Trib hopes she will do? Cost cutting? Independence? Seriously? She’s always been a complete hack and nothing in this campaign demonstrates otherwise.
Comment by Red Ranger Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 10:04 am
Wow Tronc. just bad wow.
Comment by Amalia Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 10:11 am
That’s what really struck me too, that they laid out they couldn’t really back it up besides superficial anecdotal impressions. Reading the full article didn’t leave me feeling less queasy, either.
Comment by Threepwood Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 10:13 am
Disgusting. They endorse Duckworth on the condition that she be as independent as Kirk has been, even though they know by her current voting record that she’ll tow the party line (when she bothers to show up). Utterly ridiculous and insulting.
Comment by NIU Grad Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 10:19 am
Wow, there are so many other reasons to chose Duckworth over Kirk, why pick that one?
Comment by Seymourkid Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 10:20 am
Yeah, odd that they evaluate Kirk on what they perceive to be his true condition and nature (hey, it’s their opinion), but engage in wishful thinking on Duckworth’s nature. Wow, are they gonna be disappointed in six years, if they are around in six years.
Comment by Ron Burgundy Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 10:20 am
This is what happens when an incumbent tries to get reelected without telling voters repeatedly what they accomplished during their term in office. Had Kirk and his staff followed my advice, advice I’ve repeated every other year - sorry guys for my broken record - Kirk’s campaign would be ahead. His stroke wouldn’t be an issue.
The job of an incumbent is to repeatedly tell the voters that initially elected them, that they were smart, correct and insightful for doing so. Only Durbin seems to understand this.
Kirk be gone!
Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 10:23 am
Gotta give the Trib Ed Board credit for saying something that no one has/will say publicly, but is more than willing to say privately.
The endorsement of Duckworth is still shocking.
Comment by From the 'Dale to HP Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 10:24 am
Ugh, that’s just not cool.
I wonder if the smart thing for Tammy to do here is to renounce the endorsement. She could take a moral high-ground and make up for the “deranged” snafu. Might backfire though.
Comment by Chicago_Downstater Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 10:25 am
–Wow, there are so many other reasons to chose Duckworth over Kirk, why pick that one?–
Because it required no facts, thoughtful analysis or the forming of a cogent, persuasive argument that could be put to the test.
Left a lot of time to send out resumes and attend premieres of that boffo new movie all the cool kids are raving about.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 10:26 am
I’m not certain of this but I believe this is the first time that the Tribune has not endorsed Kirk since he first ran for Congress.
Comment by slow down Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 10:27 am
this is the payback for going to war with the Tribune
Comment by Kingsley Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 10:32 am
I sure hope the Duckworth campaign rejects the so called “reasoning” behind the tronc endorsement.
Comment by Hamlet's Ghost Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 10:32 am
===this is the payback for going to war with the Tribune ===
Yeah, that crossed my mind as well.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 10:36 am
Read the whole thing.
Kirk’s stroke isn’t the only reason they give. They talk up a few votes/positions that differed from Obama that they liked (on the VA, military budgets, arming rebels in Syria) and one where she differed from Kirk that they liked (the Iran deal) and her own military record.
That said, I can’t ever remember reading an editorial where they mention unstated things that anonymous people have told them off the record as a reason to not endorse.
And I would not be surprised if this is related to the Kirk team’s unusual, personal and public battle with the Trib over Todd Lighty’s work last year. Never mess with a person who buys ink by the barrel and all that.
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20150928/BLOGS02/150929858/mark-kirks-odd-move-peter-roskams-smart-one
Comment by hisgirlfriday Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 10:37 am
Kirk picked a fight with them and then showed up at their ed board as though he took them for granted so I guess they took it out on him, but for all the reasons they could have chose … wow.
Comment by The Captain Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 10:48 am
They could have stated Duckworth displayed stronger leadership qualities without bringing up Kirk’s stroke. Kind of insulting to both to compare their challenging recoveries as a reason to pick a candidate.
Comment by Wensicia Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 10:49 am
I would call the HSLF endosement a bigger win. I suspect the various humane societies have now members than tronc editorial board has readers that take it seriously
Comment by David Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 10:52 am
Also ironic since last serious investigation they did was pot farm conditions
Comment by David Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 10:53 am
Baffled by this endorsement. Gary Johnson, now Duckworth? The Tribune is really stretching their credibility these days.
Comment by People over Parties Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 11:01 am
Dewey Defeats Truman
Comment by Anon Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 11:01 am
I don’t care who any paper endorses because I don’t rely on newspaper or celebrity endorsements–ever. Newspaper endorsements are a self-important anachronism in this digital age, and especially so when media in general is increasingly not well respected as an institution.
With that caveat and as someone who doesn’t care for either candidate and wishes we had better choices for U.S. Senate, I still must say that was possibly the worst reasoned and most poorly written “endorsement” I have ever read. Really really really bad.
Comment by Responsa Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 11:04 am
======this is the payback for going to war with the Tribune===
I believe there’s “some” of that here. Like the endorsement in its totality, I lack real facts to back up a belief.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 11:07 am
tronc: “a debt crisis that much of official Washington recklessly ignores”
Noah Smith, Stony Brook University: “America is nowhere close to having a debt crisis” http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-america-debt-crisis-insolvency-20160418-story.html
I used to wonder if the Tribune Editorial Board ever read the substantive reporting in their own newspaper, now I wonder if they even read their own editorial pages.
– MrJM
Comment by @MisterJayEm Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 11:18 am
On the Letterman f/r thing — Just what we need, another guy with zipper issues this election cycle.
Comment by Ron Burgundy Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 11:24 am
–I used to wonder if the Tribune Editorial Board ever read the substantive reporting in their own newspaper, now I wonder if they even read their own editorial pages.–
MrJM this edit in particular is one of many where I’ve wondered if anyone on the edit board read it before it went to print.
Not a whole lot of “editing” — as in tightening up prose and cogency — evident here.
It’s poorly written and doesn’t attempt to make any sense.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 11:30 am
The endorsement is stupid for the same reason nearly every “party-crossing” endorsement is stupid: in today’s partisan climate, the importance of securing your party’s control of the chamber outweighs almost every single other consideration. Mark Kirk could be Woodrow Wilson in his last year in office - if you’re primarily Republicans you endorse him. YOu can draw similar comparisons for the Sun-Times and a Democrat.
It speaks to their overinflated egos that they’re doing so much time evaluating these individuals and making “bipartisan” endorsements.
Comment by lake county democrat Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 11:43 am
Kirk is simply awful on foreign policy and I’m glad somebody has noticed…..however, in the big picture of things, I have to say that Tronc seems to be way all over the outfield this year on endorsements and political coverage.
Comment by Angry Chicagoan Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 12:41 pm
“I sure hope the Duckworth campaign rejects the so called “reasoning” behind the tronc endorsement.”
Considering their campaign just sent out an email blast touting the endorsement, I don’t think they care at all.
Comment by Clark Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 12:45 pm
Can’t we just all agree that both of these candidates and this campaign is just awful?
Comment by Ahoy! Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 1:20 pm
Come on, folks. I’m not on the editorial board and play no part in the endorsement process, but I sat in on the debate a few weeks ago and wrote this — http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/zorn/ct-mark-kirk-tammy-duckworth-debate-perspec-20161003-column.html I concluded after watching his shaky performance that Kirk had not shown us that he’s sufficiently recovered to be up to the job of U.S. Senator. That’s not a “low blow” and neither did this editorial strike a low blow. No one who watches the video of the debate — it’s at the link — can honestly conclude otherwise.
Comment by Eric Zorn Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 1:40 pm
” . . . No one who watches the video of the debate — it’s at the link — can honestly conclude otherwise. . . . ”
No one? I beg to differ. What I read in that endorsement is the man had a major stroke, recovered, is to be admired for his recovery, but isn’t physically or mentally up to the job based upon the medical opinions of Dr. Howard, Dr. Fine, and Dr. Howard.
The once prestigious Chicago Tribune. Using logic I would expect out of one of those Dan Proft newspapers in this race. How sad.
Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 1:53 pm
Total low blow and the Trib should be ashamed of themselves. You could take all the reasons they endorsed Tammy, replace with Kirk’s name and then it might make sense. When has she been an effective legislator? When has she ever worked across the aisle? The Trib thinks they have an ultra partisan voice for the Dem party with Durbin and Tammy will be any better? Is that a joke? Trib=garbage.
Comment by Anon Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 2:14 pm
Did the Trib Board or Mr. Zorn miss the part where Tammy can’t even explain how the government would pay for her free college? Real policy wonk that Duckworth is.
Comment by Anon Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 2:17 pm
Tribune- go after someone’s recovery from a major stroke- keeping it classy.
Comment by Anon Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 2:18 pm
===What I read in that endorsement is the man had a major stroke, recovered, is to be admired for his recovery, but isn’t physically or mentally up to the job based upon the medical opinions of Dr. Howard, Dr. Fine, and Dr. Howard.===
Amen to that. What kind of logic dictates voting for an opponent because of some amateur medial assumptions? Doctors note isn’t valid enough I guess. Of all the reasons to pick a candidate, they chose this. Not cool.
Comment by People over Parties Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 2:29 pm
Trib decides to state 28 days before the election that Kirk is not up for the job. They have had four years to make that statement. Maybe that’s how long it took for the board members to finish medical school.
Comment by Anon Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 2:37 pm
Do, please, watch the video instead of lashing back hastily. Ask yourself why Kirk, who is trailing in the polls, has been ducking debates — won’t do the customary Ch. 11 forum; had to be badgered (by me) into doing the Ch. 7 debate that has become a tradition in Senate races. When he “goes after” re-election, why is it the least bit inappropriate to “go after” his current fitness for office rather than taking his own doctor’s word for it?
Comment by Eric Zorn Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 2:39 pm
so Dr. Eric Zorn after watching a 60 min debate has concluded Kirk cannot serve.
If I was a stroke survivor working at the Chicago Tribune, now would be a good time to start seeking counsel.
Comment by Kingsley Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 2:48 pm
Eric, I spent 3 hours with the guy a month or so ago in a mostly one-on-one setting. My father had a stroke, my maternal grandfather died following several strokes, so I’m aware of what can happen.
Physically, he’s disabled. Mentally, he’s not as sharp as he once was. No doubt. I didn’t come away from that experience believing he should retire. We talked policy, politics, personal stuff, you name it.
Also, I watched the video the day of the debate. My biggest complaint by far was the questions from show-offs on the board who wanted to prove their foreign policy shops. It was mostly a waste of time.
And, for crying out loud, look at the US Senate membership. I think he can keep up with most of those mopes.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 2:59 pm
Dr. Eric Zorn you are also not answering the question…..did you see where Tammy explains how she is paying for free college?
Comment by Anon Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 2:59 pm
As we all are, you are obviously entitled to your own opinion on Sen. Kirk’s current medical condition based on your own observations, Mr. Zorn, and I welcome your input here today as a favorite pundit/opinion columnist. But something so breathlessly vague yet printed with “reluctant judgement” purely as laymen but under the imprimatur of the Chicago Tribune editorial board should have been handled and written very very differently and I am pretty sure you know that– even as you try to defend them. The few readers of your newspaper who still care about the political endorsement process deserved either a full throated endorsement of Tammy and her virtues (which clearly was not possible to do considering all the laughable not so subtle caveats and concerns included there about her)–or, alternatively perhaps just not endorsing at all for this office would have been the more sensible, professional and honest approach for a paper which pretends it wants to be taken seriously.
Comment by Responsa Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 3:03 pm
Dear Dr. Zorn,
Senator Durbin dodged debates in 2014. did you feel the same about him? He did not do the WTTW debate and skipped out on others. I keep searching for the articles discussing how Durbin was not fit but can’t find them.
Comment by Kingsley Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 3:03 pm
“And, for crying out loud, look at the US Senate membership. I think he can keep up with most of those mopes.”
Exactly, and he has. No one, including liberal Democrats, can look me in the eye and say that a Sen. Duckworth would work anywhere near as hard as he (and yes, his staff) has.
Maybe the endorsement team is thinking more about clickbait than quality, and I’m sure they succeeded in that.
Comment by NIU Grad Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 3:17 pm
– Senator Durbin dodged debates in 2014. –
Cong. Duckworth felt very, very differently about debates earlier this very year.
Comment by Ron Burgundy Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 3:36 pm
As a stroke survivor, I’m disheartened but as a Democrat, I’ll take it.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 3:57 pm
I have never liked it when front-runners and favorites duck debates, but as a matter of political strategy I’m sure the keen members of the CapFax commentariat would agree that it often makes sense.
Kirk has not been seen as a front runner, however, which makes the Durbin comparison inapt. And it makes the supposition that there is another reason Kirk is ducking debates somewhat stronger.
It doesn’t take a medical doctor to see that Kirk was not at all strong in that debate. He was given all the time he needed to answer questions fully, then went outside and complained to reporters that Duckworth got more time to talk than he did (in fact my criticism of Duckworth is that in her eagerness to try to score points she didn’t let us see more of Kirk).
I wrote this in the column: “Although he deserves praise and admiration for the determination with which he’s made a significant recovery, he hasn’t offered many unscripted public remarks in recent years, and when he has they’ve occasionally seemed weak and ill-focused.
A U. S. senator needs to be firing on all cylinders. And no matter what your politics, it’s more than reasonable to ask if Kirk, the incumbent Republican seeking re-election next month, is thinking and expressing himself clearly.”
Perhaps rather than “needs to be” I should have written “is ideally,” but I certainly stand by that and my other observations not just from that debate but from hearing and seeing Kirk interviewed.
Rich notes that Kirk “is not as sharp as he once was,” which contravenes the doctor’s note but strikes me as manifestly true. Will those who are aghast that this subject has been broached now start derisively calling him “doctor”?
Comment by Eric Zorn Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 4:07 pm
I watched that video of that “debate” well before the Tribune “endorsement.” I was under the impression that Kirk was trying to not behave like Trump, and Duckworth was busy filibustering using memorized bullet points, creating a big gap in speaking times. She really filibustered her “unhinged” comments defense. Not once did I feel that Kirk (or Duckworth for that matter) was not mentally or physically up to the task of being a United States Senator.
I invite Eric Zorn to visit my Facebook page where I posted during the Illinois State Fair a summary of my conversations with the Senator on “Governor’s Day.”
Using Tribune logic, along with the Dr. Howard, Dr. Fine and Dr. Howard medical observations of those in the Tribune editorial boardroom, Professor Stephen Hawking also would not have been “up to” being endorsed for the job of United States Senator.
How sad for the Tribune. How sad for America. How sad for Kirk. And how sad for Duckworth, who got a backhanded endorsement out of this.
If the Tribune wanted some unwelcome controversy, they got it. If the unwelcome controversy was a shock to the Tribune and to Zorn, then they need to get out and about a little more often.
Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 4:19 pm
=We endorse her with the expectation she will challenge her party’s leaders. We endorse her with the realization that Illinois already has one fierce Democratic loyalist in the Senate, Dick Durbin. If she’s elected, it will be Duckworth’s job to also represent the many Republican and independent Illinoisans who won’t have voted for her but who deserve a voice=
Is this a joke? Has the Trib Ed Board met Congresswoman Duckworth?
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Oct 14, 16 @ 4:40 pm