Skip to comments.Kirk apologizes for 'carelessness' in describing military career
Posted on 06/29/2010 9:12:18 PM PDT by Rabin
NORTHBROOK Republican Senate candidate Mark Kirk publicly apologized Tuesday for being careless in describing his military service and background, after a series of embellishments were revealed that could threaten his bid for President Barack Obamas former seat. As Kirk apologized, however, he also acknowledged something his campaign had flatly denied just two weeks ago.
(Excerpt) Read more at sj-r.com ...
So “careless” is no dem-speak for “Damn Liar”?
Oops that should have said now not no.
My God, are there any honest, or even semi-honest, politicians from either party in Illinois? Any? Any at all? Anyone?
I mean, everybody can carry on about S.C., what with Alvin Greene and Mark Sandford, but at least they are also electing or running great people like Jim DeMint, Nikki Haley, and Tim Scott.
There is absolutely no excuse for “carelessness” in describing your military career. If you served, that is evidence enough of your courage and dedication to the American idea. How and were you served is small potatoes in the long run.
If you are willing to disgrace your uniform by embellishing your time in the military ... you can’t be trusted. Nuff said.
There’s something wrong with DC altogether being that he’s a Pubbie.
Although he had clearly described coming under fire while flying missions over Kosovo and Iraq, Kirk began to hedge and say the he couldnt be sure his plane was targeted by the anti-aircraft fire. And he didnt mention that he rode along on only a handful of flights perhaps just three.
This is entirely unacceptable. Entirely.
Mister Kirk, you let your service, your party and your voters down. There is no recovery for lies and deceit of this magnitude.
I think he should withdraw from the race.
I hope this scumbag Democrat Kirk gets creamed by the other scumbag Democrat.
At least the other scumbag Democrat has the decency to wear the label, “scumbag Democrat”.
Better to be knifed in the face than stabbed in the back.
One of you have the Illinois politics ping list?
This sick p.o.s. Kirk should be prosecuted for "stolen valor".
I think he should withdraw from the race.I agree, but that would require more honor than he's shown thus far.
They are not lying any more than an actor "lies." They're just reciting, ad-libbing and embellishing, reciting, ad-libbing and embellishing with no more concern than an actor.
They're nuts IOW. Most of them at least.
>> Kirks apology came after a long preamble on topics from the economy to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the disastrous oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico. During the news conference, his supporters often cheered him and chided reporters. <<
I have to wonder about the (paid?) "supporters" who continue to loudly applaud and cheer on this pathelogical liar at his campaign events. PhilCollins why does Kirk call himself a Republican when he agrees with the majority of the RAT party platform? Better yet, why do his "supporters" want to pull the GOP lever? They've made it abundently clear they have no problem nominating and electing a sleazy, lying, GOP-bashing, abortion-loving, gun-grabbing, pro-amnesty, cap n' trade, anti-surge, tax-and-spend socialist. So what bothers them so much about Alexi Ginnolianis? It seems all he would have to do to make their acceptable list is put an "R" next to his name on the ballot.
I had an arguement with one of Kirk's minions on IllinoisReview who is a GOP township boss in Kirk's district. Claims Kirk is a good Republican and electing Kirk will help the conservative cause. I noted that if he really feels that way about Kirk's record, then he should elect the Madigan-selected RAT representing me in the Illinois House. My RAT state legislator isn't at liberal as Kirk. If he moved up there and defeated their "good Republican", it would actually move IL-10 to the right.
Pretty sad when "Republican" Mark Kirk is further left than many card-carrying Illinois Democrats.
Take a deep breath - we want the Republican to win, and I don’t care really much about who he/she is, so long as he/she wins. Because, then we have a shot at a Rep majority, which is important b/c then we will control the Sen Judiciary Committee, who, in turn, will decide on Fed judges. It’s that simple. Like Kagen? Me neither. Stop this RINO bs.
Yep. All that matter is "winning". Remember these great "winners" the GOP had?
Sen. Jim Jeffords
Sen. Linc Chafee
Sen. Arlen Specter
Nope. Pay attention to the Blagojevich trial and carefully note the links between Obama, Blago, Emanuel and Tony Rezko on the Democrat side, then pay attention to the Kirk campaign on the Republican side and note the fact that our last Republican governor is in jail for corruption.
It's only then you get a picture of how corrupt this state really is. It's run by the unions at this point, mostly SEIU-Illinois Union President Tom Balanoff who's in complete cahoots with Illinois Speaker of the House Tom Madigan (D.) Balanoff took his marching orders from none other than Barak Obama until Obama became President.
Then there's that complete, babbling idiot Daley, Mayor of Chicago who got his ass handed to him yesterday by the USSC with his precious gun ban being completely overturned. It was Daley's gun ban that turned Chicago into the murder capital of the country. More people died at the hands of dope dealers and crack-heads in Chicago last year than we lost in all of Iraq and Afghanistan.
You getting the picture yet?
Thanks for the lesson. That is just so sad.
Yes. You wanted rid of RINO, well - that’s what you got. Thanks for dumping Norm Coleman. Enjoy Kagan, Sotomayor, etc.
Why would anyone who would vote for Kirk be bothered by Kagan or Sotomayor?
I called Kirk’s office and asked why he’s a Republican, although he’s pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-gay marriage, and pro-spending increases. The aide, Kelly Folino, said that he usually votes for tax cuts and that he’s anti-union. I reminded her that she only mentioned two issues and that he usually agrees with Democrats. She said that tax cuts is his most important issue, so he’s a Repbulican.
Great answer, and why would anyone think that Kirk wouldn't vote to confirm the most hard core communist nominee for the court that Obama cares to name?
Kirk is the next Jefford, Chaffee, Spector, Collins, Snowe et al, in spades! Kirk is a conservative's worst nightmare! He will make us wish we had Specter back in the Senate.
I will never vote for the ultra liberal Kirk. Perhaps some day the combine in Illinois will realize that conservatives in Illinois are sick of the candidates they back.
I agree with you. In Aug. 2004, the IL GOP State Central Committee choose Alan Keyes, to run for the U.S. Senate. In the general election, he got 27%. Before the 2006 primary, many party leaders endorsed then-Treasurer Topinka, for governor. She won her primary, but, in the general election, she got 38%. Before the 2008 primary, many party leaders endorsed Steve Sauerberg, for the U.S. Senate. He won his primary, but, in the general election, he got 27%. Last summer, when some party leaders endorsed Kirk, all Illinois Republians should have known that they shouldn’t consider voting for Kirk, in the primary.
You seem to be confused. This is a thread about Mark Kirk, NOT Norm Coleman. But since you brought him up, I strongly supported Senator Coleman for re-election, as did about 90% of the anti-Kirk people on this board I know. In fact I publicly attacked those who said Coleman "deserves to lose" to Al Franken because he didn't do their bidding 100% of the time.
Coleman isn't a RINO, he's a right-of-center moderate Republican. His voting record is much better than the most GOP-friendly Democrat in the Senate, and if you didn't know what party he was but only his position on the issues, there would be no way you would assume he was a RAT.
Kirk on the other hand, isn't even a George Voinvoinch-type RINO (RINOs at least PRETEND to be "loyal Republicans" on TV). Kirk is a socialist DIABLO (Democrat In All But Label Only), and makes no bones about the fact he despises conservatives and the GOP platform. He even gloats about far-left organizations like NARAL and the Sierra Club endorsing him over Obama-style Democrats. If you didn't know Kirk's party affliation and simply had a list of where he stood on the issues, you would automatically assume he is a typical left-wing RAT like Russ Feingold or Diane Feinstein.
There seem to be a large segment of people in the GOP -- both pro-RINO establishment types and hardcore conservatives -- who simply ignore or unable to tell the difference between someone who agrees with the GOP platform 75% of the time and someone who agrees with the GOP platform 30% of the time. Even though Mark Kirk and Lindsey Graham disagree on most major issues (abortion, guns, Iraq surge, ANWR drilling, Gitmo, SCHIP, hate crimes, Charlie Rangel's bonus tax, etc.) they adamently insist on lumping both of them in the same "moderate" category.
I have explained over and over a Norm Coleman-type and a Mark Kirk-type differ, but it appears to be in vain. If you cannot tell or simply ignore the differences, that's not my problem. A vote for a right-of-center candidate is a vote for liberty. A vote for a socialist left-wing candidate is not. The only thing voting for Kirk will accomplish is adding another pro-Obama liberal in the Senate, one that will try to sell Obama's marxist agenda as "bipartisan"
Good question. The logic of Kirk supporters makes no sense. There are probably at least a dozen GOP Senators to the right of Kirk who AREN'T reliable votes against activist judges, but they'd have us believe the far more liberal Kirk will be.
I've seen any posts that we "need" Kirk in there to stop people like Kagan and Sotomayor. Why exactly do they think Kirk plans to vote against such judges? According to Kirk's own worldview, Kagan and Sotomayor are simply being "thoughtful moderates" when they support unlimited abortion on demand (including partial birth abortion), confiscation of all guns, and champion Obama's socialist schemes. Kirk himself holds the same views.
Are we to believe Kirk would oppose people who agree with him simply out of party loyalty? That the "R" next to Kirk's name matters more to him than confirming leftists who share his "thoughtful suburban values"? Kirk has certainly never sided with the GOP caucus out of "party loyalty" before, and he's had 10 years to do so. Why would he start now?
The even more bizarre argument is that Kirk voted like a socialist because he was a "liberal district" that "gave Obama 61% of the vote", and that he will vote "more conservatively" when he represents "all of Illinois". This ignores the fact that Illinois as a whole is MORE Democrat and has a HIGHER percentage of Obama voters than Kirk's district, not less. If Kirk "has to" be a marxist because his constituents often elect RATs, then he'd "have to" vote even more leftist once he's representing 3 million die-hard Chicago Democrats in the U.S. Senate.
I understand where you are coming from. But - the Reps MUST be in the majority if we want to control the Judiciary Committee. Next to declaring war, the most important thing a Pres does is appoint judges - it really is the gift that keeps on giving. Look what 45 dem senators were able to do to W’s picks for the Circuit court. Look what BHO is doing now with 59.
If you want GOP control you should call Kirk and ask him to drop out cause he’ll probably lose now.
I guess we are all to be congratulated at the defeat of a RINO and the election of a lib dem to BHO’s seat.
He has only himself to blame for his sub 50% chance of winning.