Changing the Subject: Mark Kirk May Answer Press Questions

Like just about anybody who could possibly be considered an influence on public opinion (and you can be sure they defined that *very* broadly), I received a ***Media Advisory*** from Kirsten Kukowski last night at 6:13 PM. It declared:

Kirk to Discuss U.S. Senate Race

Congressman Mark Kirk will discuss the U.S. Senate race Tuesday, highlighting his vision for creating jobs, renewing economic growth and tackling the important issues facing our state.

Given my frequent observation that Mark Kirk won't take questions from average voters, let alone the media, you'd think that I'd be all excited. You'd think.

However, the press conference is not in Chicago, but in Northbrook, an area in which Kirk feels very comfortable. And this location limits the opportunity to those news organizations that can send a van or car out there. Press credentials are required, as determined by Kirsten Kukowski. The fact that I get all the Kirk campaign's releases (sadly, none from Alexi) doesn't allow me the opportunity to ask any questions.

The big kicker: the press conference is being held two blocks from Kirk's office, and provides a quick getaway -- just in case the questions get too uncomfortable.

Given the location, I suspect not too many journalists will show up. This will probably limit the number of questions Kirk answers, since Kirsten will pull her candidate if a journalist starts asking too many questions.

So, although I was invited, they didn't really mean it. I guess I was just "informed." Nonetheless, here's some questions I'd want to ask if I had the opportunity:

1. Why would you (Kirk) exaggerate about your solid military record?
2. What political activities were you (Kirk) engaged in while on (reserve) duty that the Pentagon felt the need to counsel you?
3. Why did you (Kirk) exaggerate your duty station during the Iraq war?
4. Why did you (Kirk) exaggerate your duty station at the Pentagon (war room)?
5. Why did you (Kirk) exaggerate (first) Iraq's threat, and (then) Iran's threat to its neighbors, including Israel?
6. Why did you (Kirk) exaggerate the intelligence on Iraq's possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction?
6. Why did you (Kirk) exaggerate your college experience as a part-time nursery aide, claiming to be a teacher?

Of course, there are other questions I'd like to ask Kirk:

1. I'd like to ask about his unconditional support of Bush's selective (and distractive) invasion of Iraq
2. I'd want to ask about his defense of Rumsfeld's belief that Iraq was the center of al-Qaeda activity
3. I'd like to know more about his falling for Saddam Hussein's giant con that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction
4. I'd also like to ask about his comments about how the American government shouldn't be trusted while he was visiting abroad
5. I'd like to ask about his "micro-solutions" to so-called suburban issues that would expand the reach of government into our homes

But, then, Mark Kirk would never answer these questions. He won't "lower" himself to answer questions from voters or the Illinois media in the capital, or downtown Chicago, or anywhere else other than his "home" or safe district. He can always duck out and run to his office (which is two blocks away).

I get it. Mark Kirk needs to change the story. The fact that he's unavailable -- to the press or the electorate -- won't change with a *rare* press conference or public appearance. Kirk's "Rose Garden Strategy" is attractive, as long as no one notices that you won't leave your safe place and mingle with the "small" people. But everyone's noticed. Republicans are now awaiting Mark Kirk's second act. Democrats are licking their chops...

Read more...

Dishonoring America's Veterans

For those who have served in the military, there is nothing worse than claiming medals that one didn't receive -- or awards that one didn't get. Mark Kirk (R-Wall Street) has been "claiming he received the U.S. Navy's Intelligence Officer of the Year award for his service during NATO's conflict with Serbia in the late 1990s." In doing so, he dishonored those who served -- and, especially, those who died in the service of this country.

No one who has met Mark Kirk could express surprise. The very definition of a Washington politician, Kirk will say (and, apparently, do) anything to get what he wants. Kirk would love for us to believe that he didn't recognize the difference between the prestigious Vice Admiral Rufus L. Taylor Award and the rather unknown Rufus Taylor Intelligence Unit of the Year. But this explanation doesn't really fit with Kirk's personality. It's much more likely that he simply lied about it for personal and political gain. This fits with Kirk's pre-existing pattern of using his service in the Naval Reserve *politically* to infer that opponents don't know everything he does.

But, on Memorial Day, we should acknowledge the dishonor to the service that Kirk's false statements have brought.

This is a particularly odious characteristic of Kirk's, claiming personal (and exclusive) credit for something that was due to a unit that he led. The men under his command -- like the jobless in Illinois -- were meaningless, even though it was their work in target acquisition that prompted the award. That Kirk would conflate the unknown (and corporate sponsored) National Military Intelligence Association award with the prestigious Vice Admiral Rufus L. Taylor Award merely shows the vast horizon of Kirk's ambitions.

But it also dishonors those who served with him, and all our military veterans.

On this Memorial Day, 2010, we should call on Mark Kirk to respect the honor and integrity of the U.S. Navy and the United States Armed Forces:

1.) Mark Kirk should apologize to the entire Intelligence Division Electronic Attack Wing at Aviano for his misappropriation of an award that rightfully belongs to them.

2.) Mark Kirk should apologize from the well of the Congress for the false claims that he made "during a House committee hearing in March 2002. In a remark recorded by C-Span, he said, "I was the Navy's Intelligence Officer of the Year," an achievement he depicted as providing special qualifications to discuss national security spending."

3.) Mark Kirk should apologize TODAY to all the veterans of this country, not just those in Illinois, for his repeated mischaracterizations that brought dishonor to the uniform and to the service.

and,

4.) Mark Kirk should apologize to the people of Illinois and the United States for his shameful behavior.

Mark Kirk has proven repeatedly that he would say or do anything to achieve his ambitions, a trait that is certainly typical of a Washington politician but is *not* part of the code for how officers in the U.S. military conduct themselves. On this day, we deserve an apology. Kirk has dishonored the uniform and those who served with him. He needs to make that right.

Read more...

Concerns about Alexi Giannoulias misguided

Republican Congressman Mark Kirk, taking his cues from Karl Rove, wants everyone to know that "people are concerned" about his Democratic opponent, Illinois Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias. One of these "concerns" that people are supposed to have is over Alexi's fund-raising prowess.

You see, Alexi only raised $1.2 million to Kirk's $2.2 million in this quarter. Kirk, of course, has benefitted greatly from his support from Wall Street firms and Big Banks, which he voted to bail out in the fall of 2008. And they are certainly rewarding Kirk for his support for the big banks.

Alexi, though, has taken a different tack. His ethical guidelines prevent him from taking money from corporate PACs, like those who have contributed more than 2 million dollars to Mark Kirk. Alexi is running to represent Illinois in the U.S. Senate, not Wall Street. Kirk has already proven he'll sell his vote to the highest bidder (which rarely includes Illinois).

But, like most of Kirk's criticisms of Alexi, this one doesn't stand up, either. Alexi is squarely in the middle of Democratic Senate candidates, both incumbents and non-incumbents. No reason for concern -- unless you're Mark Kirk.

Alexi raised more money than Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Spector -- who's in a tight primary race right now. He raised twice as much as Democratic candidates in New Hampshire, Indiana and Ohio:

NV SEN: Sen. Harry Reid $1.75M
NY Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand $1.6 M
MO Sec/State Robin Carnahan ~$1.5 M
CO Sen. Michael Bennet $1.4 M
IL Treas. Alexi Giannoulias $1.2 M
PA Sen. Arlen Specter $1.16M
NH Rep. Paul Hodes $665 K
IN Rep. Brad Ellsworth $625 K
OH LG Lee Fisher $550 K
LA Rep. Charlie Melancon $543 k

So what's all the fuss about? Oh, yeah. Instead of talking about jobs, Kirk wants to attack Alexi. Instead of talking to the people of Illinois, Kirk wants to -- remember? -- attack Alexi. Whatever the question is, Kirk's answer is to attack Alexi.

The Karl Rove school of politics. Divide the nation, and suppress the vote. Sound familiar?

Democrats are supposed to be demoralized because we've nominated a bright, young, attractive reformer to be our nominee to fill Barack Obama's U.S. Senate seat. While Alexi Giannoulias can point to his head-of-the-pack leadership to save the jobs at HartMarx, Mark Kirk can point to... ANOTHER ATTACK on Alexi Giannoulias. Sense a theme here?

Mark Kirk thinks we're stupid. He thinks that if he can make Alexi a bad boy, Democrats will stay home, not vote or skip the race. And you can understand why. Conservatives are too fond of Kirk. Kirk's actual base may not go far outside his North Shore Congressional District. You won't see any Mark Kirk signs at a Tea Party rally (and don't say his name too loud, if you go). They aren't fans.

Alexi faces a stiff head wind. The national political environment doesn't favor Democrats. The economy is still in the dump for many of us. And Kirk is one of the most formidible candidates Republicans could offer.

But this is Illinois, and -- more importantly -- this is Barack Obama's old seat. Mark Kirk wants to make this race about Alexi Giannoulias, because he understands that Illinois would never elect him if this were about issues, if this was about who bests could represent OUR state in the U.S. Senate.

As this quarter's fundraising totals suggest, Mark Kirk has stepped-up his game. And now Alexi Giannoulias needs to do so, as well. Alexi remains an overly cautious candidate, one who stays well within his comfort zone. He's going to have to step outside that comfort zone and start pushing the envelope. But, in the end, this election is going to be about Illinois, not Alexi Giannoulias. It's going to be about who can best support our favorite son, in his Agenda for Hope and Change in Washington, D.C.

We understand that the East Coast corporate Fat Cats like Mark Kirk. There was really never any question about that. The question is, will Illinois elect someone who will carry Mitch McConnell's and the conservative Southern Republican leadership's water. Because no one expects Mark Kirk to bring an independent voice to the Senate. He's been George Bush's and Donald Rumsfeld's trooper in the House, and you can reasonably expect him to be Mitch McConnell's trooper in the Senate.

Illinois can do better than Mark Kirk, and we will...

Read more...

Mark Kirk continues to avoid answering our questions

Half way through the latest Congressional vacation, the AP headline said it all: Kirk won't say if he wants health care repealed. Kirk won't say -- again. Still. In perpetuity.

Mark Kirk is more than willing to talk to the New York Times and the Washington Post. He'd tell them, *if* they were interested in the Senate election here in Illinois. He's their boy. The ultimate D.C. insider, Mark Kirk is quick for a quote to the ultimate beltway insider media. But if the people here in Illinois have a question?

Mark Kirk won't say.

Mark Kirk had two weeks to spend here in Illinois. Did he sit down with the major media outlets like Alexi Giannoulias did for a whole day in the last month? Nope. Kirk couldn't be bothered.

Did Kirk spend more than a few minutes taking questions at any of his appearances around the state? Not according to any report I've seen.

Makes you wonder what Mark Kirk is hiding.

Look, I understand. Mark Kirk voted to bail out the big banks, but criticized Alexi Giannoulias for the fact that his family's community bank is in trouble. We'd like to know why Kirk wants to save the banks that have been his faithful campaign donors, but is so cavalier about banks that actually help people here in Illinios. And we'd like to know why Mark Kirk assured the conservative Club for Growth that he'd lead the efforts to repeal this historic Health Care Reform law, but has now changed his mind. Kinda sound familiar? He did the same thing with Cap and Trade. First he was for it, then he's against it. About what you'd expect from the ultimate Washington, D.C. insider.

People here in Illinois want to understand Mark Kirk's role in the GREATEST INTELLIGENCE FAILURE in our lifetime. We want to know why Mark Kirk has never stood up and voted against his very conservative leadership without their permission on a single whipped vote. We want to know why Kirk always seems to say one thing in private and another thing in public. We understand that Kirk has been dominated by powerful figures -- eg, Donald Rumsfeld and George Bush -- and we are concerned that Kirk will go to the Senate and be dominated by powerful figures (like Mitch McConnell or John Coryn). We wonder why Kirk is so secretive and why he seems to know more about China than he does Illinois. Most of all, voters in Illinois are concerned that Mark Kirk is more likely to represent the hyper-conservative Republican leadership than he is the state (and voters) of Illinois.

This two-week Congressional recess should have given voters (and media) in Illinois the opportunity to get our questions answered. But Mark Kirk won't say.

These questions have been around for awhile (hence the video above). But Kirk continues to run a stealth campaign. An inside-the-beltway campaign. We get that Mark Kirk is a busy man, an very-important-person inside the D.C. beltway. But now he wants our votes to represent our state in the Senate seat formerly held by the President of the United States. Here in Illinois, we are still proud of our presidents. So electing someone who's primary goal will be to prevent our favorite son from achieving the goals that this country elected him to do doesn't exactly seem in our best interests.

But Mark Kirk won't say. Is it arrogance? Hubris? Are we an inconvenient burden for Kirk? Or has Kirk simply decided that we don't deserve to understand his thinking, or that he doesn't deserve to explain his part in our government failures?

Mark Kirk won't say, so he's attacking Alexi Giannoulias for things over which he (Alexi) had no control. Mark Kirk assured his constituents that he knew where the WMDS were in Iraq, but he won't explain why none have been found. Yet he was directly responsible for making that assurance -- assurances you can be sure he also made to the New York Times and the Washington Post in the run-up to our invasion of Iraq.

I get it. We're just little people here in Illinois. And Mark Kirk is a Very Important D.C. Insider. We shouldn't question him. We should just take the scraps that he's given us and accept them. Hey, isn't Kirk waving a flag? See! That should be good enough!

In other words, Kirk is telling us to trust him.

I don't know about you, but I'm not exactly in a trusting mood with regard to politicians. Especially Very Important D.C. Insiders. If Mark Kirk won't answer our questions, then Mark Kirk doesn't deserve our votes. Kirk represents what is wrong with Washington, D.C. He certainly hasn't demonstrated any interest in fixing the place.

Illinois Statehouse News offered another, more telling headline last week: Mark Kirk Says he won’t lead. This is a Senate seat with some history to it. Some of us would like a Senator who can lead, someone who can stand up to powerful interests (like Michael Madigan) and come away with a victory. We don't need a Senator who always says No -- there are things we'd like the Federal Government to do. We need a Senator who knows how to say Yes to Illinois, Yes to Illinois' interests and will represent them when he goes to Washington. The choice couldn't be more stark -- Mark Kirk, the ultimate beltway insider, or Alexi Giannoulias, an independent reformer who listens to the people here in Illinois and has gone out of his way to answer our questions...

Read more...

Not even his supporters Trust Mark Kirk

You can't trust Mark Kirk. Even the right-wing conservative Club for Growth doesn't trust Kirk:

Now the Club for Growth, the powerful, well-funded conservative group, is ripping into Kirk for his sudden indecision, and making it clear that they expect him to live up to his promise.

“He said that he’s going to do this,” Club for Growth spokesman Mike Connolly just said by phone. “We expect him to live up to his pledge.”

Kirk has signed on to the Club’s repeal pledge, which states: “I hereby pledge to the people of my state to sponsor and support legislation to repeal any federal health care takeover passed in 2010, and replace it with real reforms that lower health care costs without growing government.”

“He’s made a promise to the people of Illinois,” Connolly continued. Asked if failing to follow through could cost Kirk the Club’s support in a general election, Connolly said: “We’ll have to see.”

The Club's concern comes after Mark Kirk "repeatedly" refused to say "whether he wants the legislation repealed."

Mark Kirk is campaigning for Barack Obama's old U.S. Senate seat with a Beltway Insider strategy. He doesn't talk to Illinois voters, or local media, although he continues to take calls (and get covered) by the New York Times and Washington Post. But they don't ask him tough questions (like would he really -- REALLY? -- follow through with his pledge to repeal universal coverage, or ending denial for pre-existing conditions, or the practice of recission and lifetime limits on health coverage.

Instead, Mark Kirk dodges questions by Illinois voters and local media.

Apparently, because Kirk believes he can. Kirk's strategy in this campaign has been to attack Alexi Giannoulias for whatever he can think of. Broadway Bank followed the advice of the Federal Reserve and U.S. Attorney General's office with regards to enticing members of organized crime into disclosure and participation in the (above ground) economy? Mark Kirk won't tell you that numerous mobsters have been convicted and sent to prison (eg, Al Capone) because of the disclosure statements they gave to bankers -- because that would make his personal attacks on Alexi seem, well, ridiculous.

Nor will Mark Kirk tell you if he really means it when he promises to take away health care insurance from kids, young adults and older Americans.

The question we should ask ourselves is this: if Mark Kirk's most adament supporters can't trust him, why should we?

The dilemma Illinois voters face in contemplating their vote for U.S. Senate is this: Mark Kirk has never demonstrated any type of political courage during his service in Congress. He didn't stand up George Bush or Donald Rumsfeld when they were making decisions to invade Iraq based on the greatest intelligence failure in my lifetime. He's never stood up to the conservative Republican leadership on a whipped vote (without their permission) since he's been in the U.S. House. And now he can't stand up and admit that he's taken a controversial decision, one that isn't supported by the electorate here in Illinois or stand up to the right wing conservative Club for Growth when they are demanding that Kirk stick to his pledge.

You just can't trust Mark Kirk. He's never given us reason to trust him, and now his supporters are starting to recognize Kirk's lack of fortitude. There's no reason for Illinois to send him to the Senate. These tough times demand someone who can help bring the country forward, out of the abyss into which George Bush has driven us...

Read more...

Burris: No longer in the running

By Bethany Jaeger
No Lisa Madigan. No Roland Burris. The race to be the next U.S. senator from Illinois just narrowed to a more classic competition. The seat has gained national attention for its previous occupant, President Barack Obama.

Madigan, the Illinois attorney general, announced yesterday and Burris announced today that they opted not run in 2010.

“It’s an open seat, and the focus is more going to be more on national issues than would have been the case if Burris were running or if Lisa Madigan essentially would have cleared the field,” said Kent Redfield, political scientist at the University of Illinois at Springfield.

If Madigan would have run, Redfield said she would have been the Democrats’ strongest candidate. “Her not running is a minus for the Democrats, but Burris not running is certainly a plus. There’s no question about that.”


Burris never shed the cloud that hovered over his appointment by former Gov. Rod Blagojevich. The then-governor had just been arrested on federal corruption charges, accused of trying to personally profit from his powers to appoint the state’s next senator. Early polling of 644 likely voters showed that just 5.3 percent of respondents supported Burris as a candidate for a full term. Numerous Illinois officials, including U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin and then-Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn, urged Burris step down. Burris wouldn’t budge. His ambitious style came through in, "Always in the running," our profile of him in Illinois Issues magazine.

Burris said today during a Chicago news conference that fundraising had a lot to do with his decision not to run in 2010. Here’s an excerpt of his announcement:

Life is about choices. Make no mistake, I love serving in the United States Senate. I love serving the people of Illinois, make no mistake.

I’m the only African-American serving in the Senate, and I believe that diversity and representation of all segments of our society is essential to who we are as a nation.

The reality of being a U.S. senator today [is that it] requires not only a significant time commitment to performing the job, but an almost equal commitment to raising funds to run competitively for the office.

Political races have become far too expensive in this country.

I was called to choose between spending my time raising funds or spending my time raising issues for my state. The people … should always come first.

The chronicles of Burris’ statements about whether he spoke to Blagojevich, Blagojevich’s brother or Blagojevich’s inner circle was the never-ending story. First he testified to an Illinois House committee that was investigating cause for the governor's impeachment. He said he only spoke with Lon Monk, Blagojevich’s former chief of staff. Then Burris revealed in a follow-up affidavit that he also spoke with the governor’s brother, as well as three insiders: Doug Scofield, John Wyma and former Deputy Gov. John Harris, who just pleaded guilty to wire fraud in the ongoing Blagojevich corruption case.

Burris most recently avoided perjury charges in Sangamon County, where State’s Attorney John Schmidt said Burris’s statements might have been vague, but there’s no proof that he intentionally mislead the Illinois House committee. Burris still faces a probe by the U.S. Senate.

His bow out of the 2010 election eliminated an easy target for the GOP, Redfield said. “It kind of takes Burris and Blagojevich out of the Senate race.”

Now, likely candidates are taking shape. On the Democratic side, they include state Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias. Redfield says he has the advantage of being the only candidate so far who has run a statewide race before. He also has a significant campaign kitty, with reportedly more than $1 million raised for his potential Senate bid. Two candidates with less name recognition include Cheryle Jackson, chief executive officer of the Chicago Urban League, and Chris Kennedy, head of Chicago’s Merchandise Mart and son of the late U.S. Sen. Robert F. Kennedy. Redfield said Jackson also could have a slight disadvantage by being tied to Blagojevich. She was his communications director during his first term.

On the Republican side, U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk of Hinsdale has been reported as set to run for the Senate seat. Redfield said he brings his national experience to the table, but as a moderate Republican, he would have to work to gain the moderate and independent vote. Andy McKenna, chairman of the Illinois Republican Party and businessman, also has reportedly discussed the idea. He lost his 2006 bid.

Read more...

Members of the House of Representatives that have sworn off earmarks

A list of US Congressmen who have sworn off earmarks. Only one Illinois Congressman is on it, Mark Kirk. Followers of Congressional pork have problems with earmarks. Hat-tip InstaPundit.

Read more...

Chris Kelly News Roundup

Early on in his first administration, Gov. Blagojevich was criticized for spending taxpayer dollars to monitor his press coverage.

I wonder what Blagojevich was thinking when he read this in the morning clips:

USA TODAY:

Illinois governor's former adviser on gambling accused of tax fraud

The Associated Press is reporting that Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s former adviser on gambling issues was charged today with tax fraud for allegedly tapping his company's funds to pay off gambling debts.

I wonder what Jay Hoffman was thinking when he read this:

St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

Blagojevich friend is indicted

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. — Gov. Rod Blagojevich's former top fundraiser and gambling-issue adviser was indicted Thursday on charges that he hid more than $1 million in personal income — in part to conceal his gambling debts. It was part of a trio of new federal indictments against people connected to Blagojevich's administration.

And I wonder what the ex-patriots in Paris when they woke up to this:

International Herald Tribune (Paris):

Ill. Gov. Blagojevich's ex-adviser indicted in corruption investigation

CHICAGO: Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich's former adviser on gambling issues was charged Thursday with tax fraud for allegedly dipping into his roofing company's money to pay off gambling debts.


I love that one. Paris. George Ryan had to get nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize to get mentioned there.


GOP Hopefuls or Hopeless?

Somebody remind me how Rod Blagojevich got re-elected?

Oh yeah, the GOP can't find a statewide candidate w/o both hands and a map.

The Republican Party is so divided by regionalism and social values, they can't seem to get their act together. The only things they agree on are they hate Emil Jones and Rod Blagojevich. And they love Jim Edgar.

Many people have mentioned Tom Cross, Sen. Brady, Aaron Schock as potential GOP statewide candidates. I've got news for you. Tom Cross doesn't play too well in the Biblebelt, and Sen. Brady and Aaron Schock will never make it in the suburbs. Heck, Schock only plays in Peoria.

So, my question is, what OTHER Republicans do you think have a shot at getting elected to statewide office some day. What office? When?

My pick: Mark Kirk. I think Kirk is going to get tired of being in the minority in Washington under a Democratic President. I think he will run for Governor. And I think he'll do it in 2010 if Obama is in the White House.

Okay. That's my pick. Anybody else?

Read more...