Exiled from the GOP

Reasons for Change: Massive Intelligence Failures

2006-10-26T05:18:00.000-07:00

mark kirk has made much of his service as a naval reserve intelligence officer and especially his award as the Navy's "Intelligence Officer of the Year." so one should expect that kirk's job in the pentagon would have made him aware of the rather dubious intelligence that has emerged since that award.

instead of winning awards, mark kirk has towed the administration's line on the intelligence front since his election. yet there are numerous examples of massive intelligence failure during the bush administration. the attacks on 9/11 are just the first example. the bush administration believed the prior administration to be "obsessed" with osama bin laden and al-qaeda. obviously, to george bush, dick cheney and donald rumsfeld, the clinton administration had been misguided in not focusing on iraq. that was the *real* threat (to republicans).

where was mark kirk? standing with bush, of course. despite kirk's security clearance, despite his training as an intel officer, despite his access to the information that should have steered him the other way, he stood with the bush administration, focusing on iraq as an "emerging threat," instead of the real threat posed by the non-nation actor, al qaeda.

but there's more!

mark kirk was sold by the war monger's belief that there were weapons of mass destruction in iraq. while claiming to be an "owl" -- one who approaches this with a steady, firm judgment kirk bought the bush spin hook, line and sinker. instead of his promise to show steady, firm judgment, kirk demonstrated incredibly poor judgment, and an inability to perform one of the key functions of a member of congress -- oversight of the executive branch and especially our national security apparatus. instead of acting like a john mccain, sam nunn or john murtha -- an expert in military issues with an independent streak -- mark kirk acted like a rubber stamp for the extreme right wing.

where's the weapons of mass destruction? where was the imminent threat? WHAT WAS HE THINKING???

historians will write of this decade as a time of massive intelligence failures, an era when our supremely bad judgment distracted us from the threats at our front doors for an invented threat far, far away. and history will record that mark kirk was not thoughtful, that kirk was not independent, and kirk did not demonstrate steady leadership.

AN INTEL OFFICER SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER. an intel officer should have spoken up against george bush's rash judgments -- and his rash decisions. more americans have died in the dubious enterprise of invading iraq than died on september 11, 2001. and those deaths do nothing to deter al qaeda, and its offshoots, from continuing to threaten the united states. mark kirk had a part in the massive intelligence failures that have driven this country on the wrong course, for our national security, for our military, for our future. he's demonstrated incredibly poor judgment -- in an area in which he claims expertise.

mark kirk was a sucker. instead of demonstrating independence in a field in which he's supposed to have some expertise, kirk swallowed the kool-aid for bush, cheney and rumsfeld. we can no longer afford to have "yes men" in congress, people who can't stand up to a rash president or offer a more coherent approach to these very complex problems.

voting against mark kirk -- and for dan seals -- is one of the purest votes the electorate can make to show its displeasure for the direction that george bush has taken our country. it's not simply that mark kirk supported the president and his misguided goals, but that he was a party to the massive intelligence failures of this administration. a vote for kirk says that bush was right to get distracted from the real threats that this country faces. we already know that bush was wrong. mark kirk hasn't been able to figure that out. we can't afford to have the patience for him to catch up...

Countdown to Change: Reasons for Change

2006-10-21T06:30:00.000-07:00

i've been distracted by mark kirk's use of children as human shields to prevent voters from thinking about the implications of voting for kirk. while i find kirk's association with the pedophile mark foley reprehensible, and the pictures he uses on his website frightening, the fact is that there are many reasons why thoughtful, independent voters will be casting their ballots against mark kirk this election.

iraq is only one, and perhaps the most important, reason why. this video frames the choice nicely:

Mark Kirk Likes Children

2006-10-19T05:26:00.000-07:00

it's pretty disgusting. you would think, given his friendship and alliance with the pedophile, mark foley, that kirk would have changed his strategy and been more respectful of people's concerns.

but no. as one person put it, kirk's attention to children is

sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick

no one can be surprised that kirk is falling rapidly in the polls. does kirk think we are unaware of his close association with the disgraced pedophile? there's only one reason that kirk would run that commercial and keep those pictures up on his website.

mark kirk is sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick. it's disgusting...

Out of Touch, Distant and Protected...

2006-10-15T05:25:00.000-07:00

one of the things that happens when you are someone like mark kirk is that you hide from people. in fact, if you are mark kirk, you hide from everyone.

kirk has created false illusions about himself, in the attempt to seem more like the people of the tenth district. in illinois, he acts like a john porter moderate, someone who cares about the environment, about protecting our rights, about bipartisanship. at home -- in dc -- he asks for permission from the leadership to vote his district, he is the leadership's "vote in reserve." ask yourself, how many times has mark kirk voted against the republican leadership on votes they deemed essential?

the illusion that kirk has created about himself, that protective barrier, is the reason that you don't see him in his district very often. when you are deceiving your employers (in kirk's case, the voters), you don't want to look them in the eye very often, do you? so one doesn't find kirk holding townhall meetings like the rest of congress. one doesn't find kirk meeting with large groups in the district.

instead, mark kirk treats his constituents like george bush campaigned in 2004 -- you could see him, but only if you were pre-screened, and you signed the loyalty oath. the bush analogy is stronger than you might think. bush pretended to be compassionate about his conservatism (nicely packaged language) while kirk pretends to be a moderate. but his unwavering positions about our elective invasion of iraq (while there was a war on terrorists to be fought) disproved that. not only does kirk stand with the right-wing extremists in this country, he stands against an overwhelming majority of americans who think we were wrong to rely on faulty intelligence and george bush's incredible arrogance that he is right about everything.

i suppose if i were mark kirk, hiding in the closet from my constituents, i would be distant and out-of-touch, too. i'm sure mark kirk is scared that voters will discover his secret. but all the more reason for the tenth to choose a new congressman, someone who represents tenth district values, next month. mark kirk's dalliance with george bush makes that imperative. you can't trust him, and he won't come back here, so why should we re-elect him? he's out of touch, distant and way too protected in the washington beltway. he's not regular people anymore...

Mark Kirk's New Mailer...

2006-10-10T04:40:00.000-07:00

we've all got them. mark kirk tries to compare himself to dan seals.

there's no comparison. but kirk ignores the questions on everyone's minds:

who has ties to the pedophile, mark foley? kirk: strong ties seals: no ties

who has ties to the speaker, who covered up foley's dalliance with congressional pages in high school: kirk: strong ties seals: no ties

who has co-sponsored legislation as a means for hiding a sexual predator? mark kirk, that's who! dan seals: clean bill

who can best protect our children? dan seals (a father), that's who! mark kirk? you can't trust him.

mark kirk doesn't represent the values of the people of the tenth congressional district. kirk's constituents are outraged at the actions of the GOP and the pedophile that it hid in its midst. dan seals shares our outrage.

mark kirk stood by his friend. the pedophile. shame on mark kirk. shame...

Mark Kirk and the Pedophile II

2006-10-09T04:14:00.000-07:00

today's washington post reports that: republican jim kolbe (r-ariz.) knew of mark foley's racy internet exchanges as far back as 2000 and had confronted foley about them. this startling revelation not only casts considerable doubt on denny hastert's spin of this, but also prompts these questions:

* given mark kirk's close association with the pedophile, what did kirk know and when did he know it?

* and given the inevitable fall of kirk's patron, how will kirk be able to play a significant role in future congresses?

kirk's close alliances with a pedophile and someone who covered up foley's activities largely marginalizes any power or influence kirk hoped to have in the future. kirk (and foley's) suburban agenda is dead -- it was created to protect a pedophile. kirk really can't believe voters nationwide won't understand this...

Mark Kirk and the Pedophile

2006-10-08T06:43:00.000-07:00

there is something profoundly disturbing when people in authority try to defend their actions to protect a known child predator -- and mark kirk's friend and mentor -- with the assertion that "it's ok, they did it, too!"

message to mark kirk (and the gop): IT'S NOT OK!!!!

it's not ok for congressmen to prey on young, idealistic pages, no matter what gender they are, or what is the congressman's sexual preference.

it's not ok for congressmen to hide their predatory practices behind their concerns about "safety for children."

it's not ok for the (gop) leadership -- HELLO, MARK KIRK! -- to cover up these incidents because they want to protect one of their own and retain the reigns of power.

mark kirk has no credibility in this area because of his friendship and association with mark foley and the fact that HE HAD TO KNOW. if he didn't know about foley's predatory practices, then he has no influence, no power, and is completely oblivious to his surroundings. more importantly, his naivete makes it dangerous, especially for children. if mark kirk is that oblivious, our children simply are not safe as long as he's in congress. if kirk didn't know about foley's predispositions toward young boys then he is too impotent to be our representative in congress.

and if he did know, he not only showed poor taste, he demonstrated poor judgment.

regardless, mark kirk protected his friend, the pedophile. kirk's images on his website not only demonstrate the fact that he's lost touch with our values, but that he just doesn't care what normal people think. the bar is not set very high for someone to be a much better member of congress than this friend of a pedophile, mark kirk...

Grossed Out

2006-09-30T04:51:00.000-07:00

i don't know about you, but with all the stories about mark foley out right now, kirk's website gives me the creeps. foley and kirk shared a passion for the exploited children issue that always seemed a bit abnormal to me. for foley, perhaps now we have a better understanding why.

why does kirk's unusually high focus on children seem a little off? i don't know. but here's a guy who has all these credentials for military intelligence, who sits on important committees and is in the republican leadership (which knew about the accusations against foley and did nothing about them!) -- but his focus is on children? that's weird. it's just a little bit strange. perhaps even a little obsessive.

mark foley shared kirk's bizzare focus in a time of war. perhaps now we have a better understanding why...

Independent? Not Mark Kirk!

2006-09-22T06:15:00.000-07:00

yesterday, david broder, the dean of american political reporters (and one who hails from these parts), wrote Independence Days, a column about the independent republicans who stood up against bush's reckless detainee proposal. john mccain, john warner and lindsey graham are loyal republicans, men of great strength and personal courage -- and real independent leaders.

mark kirk is not just pale in comparison, he's a downright rubber stamp for george bush and tom delay!

john mccain has proven repeatedly that he can go across the aisle, talk to the other side, sponsor BIPARTISAN proposals that are well-within the political mainstream and address real problems that need immediate solution. mccain's sponsorship of the immigration bill, campaign finance reform, and his membership in the "gang of 14" shows real political independence.

mark kirk just pales in comparison.

the tenth congressional district needs a real independent as its congressman. mark kirk has repeatedly failed that test. he tows the company line of the extreme right-wing agenda. that's not political independence. it is time for the 10th to be served by more than rhetoric, by a congressman who knows how to build consensus on both sides of the ailse. mark kirk's re-packaging of bush's agenda, or his efforts to divide america through wedge issues, shows that, in his heart, he's no john porter moderate. party is more important to kirk.

a real independent, committed to real bipartisan cooperation, requires more than just pretty words from a boy prince. it requires action, not division. mark kirk may talk like he's an independent, but his deeds prove otherwise. when it matters, kirk votes with the right-wing. mark kirk is a MINO (moderate in name only), he's a political fraud who's betrayed the people of the tenth...

Mark Kirk's Incumbency Problem

2006-09-21T06:26:00.000-07:00

mark kirk has several strikes against him: first, he's a republican in a democratic district (even before the dramatic uptike in democratic voters!). secondly, he's sold himself as a john porter moderate while kissing the ring and doing the bidding of george bush and tom delay (neither of whom anyone thinks are moderates). third, you have this tremendous pressure out in voterland to strike back at george bush, who's reckless policies seem to end in failure, whether it domestic (eg, katrina) or foreign (eg, iraq). but bush isn't on the ballot. kirk is the republican who sits at the top of the ballot, and he's the most likely target for voters frustrated by bush.

add to those the fact that democrats are more energized this year (they want to strike out against bush!) than republicans. they see this upcoming election through a national prism, not the localized elections that republicans would prefer. and now comes news that americans are displeased with congress:

With the midterm elections less than seven weeks away, Americans have an overwhelmingly negative view of the Republican-controlled Congress, with substantial majorities saying that they disapprove of the job it is doing and that its members do not deserve reelection, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

The disregard for Congress is the most intense it has been since 1994, when Republicans captured 52 seats to end four decades of Democratic control of the House and retook the Senate as well. It underlines the challenge the Republican Party faces in trying to hold onto power in the face of a surge in anti-incumbent sentiment.

this coincides with the job approval numbers for congress. people see america "on the wrong track." and despite bush's attempt to confuse the public (again), iraq remains the number one issue on people's mind (distinct from terrorism).

mark kirk's in trouble. right here on the great lakes. it starts with s, and rhymes with meals. yep, mark kirk's in trouble...

Fe Fi Fo Fum, Mark Kirk is a Scared Congressman!

2006-09-18T07:57:00.000-07:00

mark kirk is worried. he's not supposed to be in a race this november. he's wrapped up the last two elections with spectacular victories, and one hears that he's made a deal with rahm emanuel so that his current opponent won't get dccc support (this is gossip).

yet mark kirk acts worried!

you can understand why. there are numerous indicators out there that suggest that kirk is in trouble. many of these are inter-related. kirk's biggest problem is that this upcoming election will be, for many voters, about george bush. as stuart rothenberg puts it, "what is developing is a classic political wave of voter dissatisfaction about the direction of the nation and the performance of the president. Congressional candidates from the president’s party are about to bear the brunt of voter dissatisfaction, because President Bush isn’t on the ballot. Republican incumbents are in trouble not because they are incumbents, but because they are Republicans."

of course, mark kirk has always hid from the fact that he's a republican, and voters have let him get away with it. but this time could be different. voters won't forgive george bush for his reckless actions, and mark kirk is the only person they can take it out on. as bloomberg points out, "Thirty-six percent of those polled said the congressional elections on Nov. 7 will be an opportunity cast a symbolic vote against the president, up from 15 percent before the last mid- term election in 2002, according to the survey by the Washington-base Pew Center." no wonder kirk looked so scared at the buffalo grove parade!

there's another reality that haunts kirk: illinois is turning a darker shade of blue. "The percentage of Illinois voters who call themselves Democrats is at its highest pre-election level in more than a decade, posing a problem for Republicans trying to win the governor's mansion and key congressional seats, a Tribune/WGN-TV poll shows."

admittedly, "In the collar counties, 31 percent of voters aligned themselves with Republicans while 29 percent identified with Democrats." but the problem here is that there are not enough republicans for kirk to win based on his record of loyalty to the republican party and president bush's positions. kirk either needs to win a majority of independent voters or suppress the vote. he's won the former in the past. that may not help him in november.

kirk's biggest problem is keeping voters from viewing seals as a winner. his tactic in the last two races was to basically dismiss his challengers. his apologists have tried that again, this time. but with obama's support (and the inevitable commercials making that clear), kirk has a problem. obama's 2-0, with one victory against the illinois machine. kirk's may be his next scalp!

Kirk Betrays Moderates, Sticks with Bush

2006-09-17T09:25:00.000-07:00

this week, mark kirk will again show his true colors. his devotion to the extreme right-wing position of president bush, redefining the geneva conventions against the advice of his military advisors (the ones in uniform), will expose his connection to the conservativism, while parading around the 10th district as a porter moderate.

this week, mark kirk will vote to support president bush's attempt to redefine the geneva conventions more to his liking -- but against every thought of common sense known to man (and woman).

the dispute between the moderates and the extremists is over common article 3 of the geneva conventions, which prohibits inhumane treatment of combatants seized in wartime. the problem is that bush has declared this a war, the supreme court has ruled against bush's extremist positions, and the republican moderates (colin powell, john mccain, john warner and lindsey graham) lead the charge against bush's extreme position on detainee policy.

mark kirk stands with the extremists, and against the moderates in his party.

the problem is that this is not about getting republicans elected. this is about protecting americans in uniform and what could happen to them if they are captured by the enemy -- as happened to john mccain. if america reinterprets the geneva conventions to fit its ideological preferences, there is nothing to prevent our enemies from doing the same, eliminating protections for our troops seized in future confrontations. senior judge advocates general have already publicly disputed numerous aspects of the administration's position, but especially any reinterpreting of the geneva conventions. the geneva accords have long been the cornerstone of international law, and america has been the leading defender of the conventions -- until bush and kirk were elected.

kirk's blind loyalty to bush, and his utter disregard for our american troops, has lead to his voting with bush -- and against the mainstream political opinion in the country. moreover, this misguided loyalty sets back our efforts in the global war on terrorism. as senators mccain, warner and graham point out, the bush position signals to the world that america has abandoned its commitment to human rights and justice in the world.

kirk's extreme position sets him apart from the real veterans of the uniformed services in congress, who argue that the president’s proposal guts the geneva conventions, sending a stark signal to the rest of the world and leaving our military without adequate protection against torture and mistreatment. it sets him apart from colin powell and numerous retired military officers who wrote letters supporting the moderate's position. and it sets him apart from the political mainstream and centrists in this country. mark kirk is no moderate -- he's one of bush's lackeys in the house. the american military is the real loser here...

A Test of Kirk’s So-called Independence

2006-09-16T09:46:00.000-07:00

thursday, john mccain, lindsey graham, john warner and susan collins demonstrated their independence from george bush’s immoral (according to colin powell) policies on the geneva conventions and u.s. detainee policy. if someone is serious about the war of terrorism (and we all know that mark kirk would rather shutting down internet websites), then how we treat our prisoners is central to the message we are sending to the world.

mark kirk, of couse, stands with george bush. but “the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism,” colin powell said. george bush is wrong. mark kirk is wrong. this is not about terror suspects or detainees, but what could happen to our men and women in uniform if they were captured. the military (the real military, not the rumsfeld sychophants) wants to make sure that our captured soldiers are treated in accordance with the geneva conventions. they know that in order to assure that, we must treat those we capture the same way.

mark kirk stands against the military and our service members by supporting the misguided policies of the president. independent? not a chance. mark kirk has never been independent of this white house, and there’s no reason to expect him to be now. his efforts are aimed at strengthening the white house’s position, even when it’s wrong.

in this case, morally wrong. mark kirk, just say no to torture, and yes to the geneva conventions. not all of our soldiers get to “fight” a war from behind a pentagon desk. they are the ones who need the protections of the geneva conventions. real soldiers know that. real soldiers are independent of the white house…

What True Independence and Thoughtful Leadership Looks Like...

2006-09-13T04:52:00.000-07:00

i believe in wedge issues. i believe in positioning my candidate in between their opponent and the voters. but who would have thought that someone could use political independence as a wedge? that's exactly what mark kirk is trying to do!

mark kirk can't honestly be considered independent. kirk uses the phrase, "thoughtful, independent leadership," as a way of connecting himself to the voters of the 10th congressional district and the legacy of john porter. but kirk's ties to the conservative club for growth, his declared support for conservative roy blunt instead of the more independent john boehner, and his fervent support for bush and his war on iraq, all cast considerable doubt on kirk's claim to political independence. kirk packages himself as an independent, but doesn't actually demonstrate political independence (or necessarily vote with those who do). alone among those considered republican moderates in congress, mark kirk was not punished for opposing the delay agenda. it didn't seem to occur to the republican moderates that kirk was a beneficiary of tom delay's contributions to the club!

a lot of the problem is that the country has become bitterly divided since the election of george bush. perhaps it was bitterly divided before that, but the florida fiasco laid that division bare. so mark kirk can claim political independence while voting with the extreme right-wing congressional leadership because there aren't a lot of examples of political independence out there. this became clear last night, as the politically independent lincoln chaffee fought off another club for growth candidate, steve laffey.

consider the differences here. lincoln chaffee was opposed by the club for growth, mark kirk supported by them. lincoln chaffee has taken brave stands in opposition to the republican party and its congressional leadership, mark kirk has voted more than 80% of the time with the party leadership. even when kirk stakes out a position of independence from the right-wing gop leadership he asks for permission to do so! that's not political independence by any standard a reasonable person would use.

for the confused, below is an example of what independent, thoughtful leadership looks like. politically independent members of congress talk about crossing the partisan divide, not reinforcing the right-wing status quo. politically independent members of congress talk about solutions to real problems that voters face, not micro issues. politically independent members of congress stake out bold stands and don't slink from taking a position (ala the schiavo vote). mark kirk isn't politically independent, he just wants you to think he is. he's the faux moderate.

The President's Speech and Mark Kirk

2006-09-12T11:36:00.000-07:00

what's wrong with mark kirk?

i don't know about you, but as i was watching the president's speech last night (and watching monday night FOOTBALL -- on mute), i kept thinking about mark kirk's micro issues. here we have the president talking about the ideological struggle of our era, "a struggle for civilization" itself, and kirk is talking about shutting down myspace. there's something wrong here.

the most obvious disconnect is that kirk, with his background in intelligence, isn't focused on winning this "struggle for civilization" itself. that makes me wonder what's wrong with kirk? doesn't he have enough gravitas in congress to be influential on intelligence and military issues? is the "struggle for civilization" just too minor for kirk to be concerned about -- or over his head? what's wrong with mark kirk?

sounds to me like mark kirk has decided that suburban voters are just too stupid -- or too selfish -- to care about the issues dominating the world today. maybe he's right about that, but it doesn't seem to be the case in my neighborhood. terrorism isn't a second tier issue for my neighbors, and i have to wonder who mark kirk has been talking to.

perhaps it is ok for us to be represented by members of congress who focus on more mundane issues, and don't really put their shoulder into the work needed to win this "struggle for civilization." but it seems to me that if president bush -- or mark kirk -- were serious about this fight we are in, they would be working very hard to rally the country around a vision for fighting and winning this war against an amorphous enemy (just as george kennan laid the ground work for our struggle against communism in 1947).

i would imagine that if president bush -- or mark kirk -- were serious about this they would be asking people to make considerable sacrifices, for the good of the country. that is, if this is truly a "struggle for civilization." but mark kirk's words and deeds belie this claim of bush's. apparently, we're not really in a real war, because no one is expected to sacrifice (except maybe for those military families who have lost loved ones). no one's taxes are raised (our kids and grandchildren can pay for bush's, and kirk's, ideas -- we're baby boomers, remember?). no one's soul is stirred. no consensus with our allies need be reached.

mark kirk's 20 tiny little ideas tell us that george bush is, well, full of it. if we really were in a massive "struggle for civilization," then mark kirk would be focused on winning this struggle. instead, he's more concerned about winning your vote, and about how to keep this right-wing congress in power for two more years.

what's wrong with mark kirk?

The Gipper

2006-09-11T20:24:00.000-07:00