Replies

>> Kirk said voters should trust him in part because of his career in public service. His campaign had said earlier this month that he never violated Pentagon policies in response to a blogger who disclosed a Defense Department memo referring to Kirk being “counseled” for political activity while on duty. His campaign called the document “a baseless political ploy.” But Kirk acknowledged Tuesday that he was counseled in late 2008 after he gave interviews about former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s arrest and then for a Twitter post he said his staff made in July 2009 when he was on duty. His problems began with the revelation last month that his frequent references to being named the Navy’s intelligence officer of the year were false. Instead, a unit Kirk led won a different award. That was followed by a string of other errors and exaggerations. A letter from his office said he served in the first Gulf War when he did not. He has also referred to serving in the invasion of Iraq, although his duties kept him stateside. He said his Reserve work sometimes includes running the Pentagon war room, even though he oversees only the intelligence operations. Although he had clearly described coming under fire while flying missions over Kosovo and Iraq, Kirk began to hedge and say the he couldn’t be sure his plane was targeted by the anti-aircraft fire. And he didn’t mention that he rode along on only a handful of flights — perhaps just three. <<

>> Kirk’s 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.