Call It A Comeback
That he could probably have killed the school issue by saying he said something stupid and regrets the error. He talks a lot and says something dumb every now and then sorry for the misleading statement.
Instead he issues a correction dripping in condescension and passive aggressiveness to a story by claiming he was referring to two different schools in two different countries in the same sentence. Mark Kirk–making himself look worse than any one else ever could.
June 17th, 2010
Yesterday, in its story confirming that Congressman Kirk once worked as a teacher, the New York Times incorrectly attributed a background statement to Kirk campaign spokesperson Kirsten Kukowski as follows:
“His spokeswoman said the congressman was referring to nursery school students in Ithaca, not his students in London, during that speech on the House floor in 2006.”
Before and after publication, the Kirk campaign made it clear that the clause “brightest lights of our country’s future” referenced nursery school kids in Ithaca, New York while the “bore scrutiny” clause referenced a few kids at Milestone School in London. As we told the reporter, Mr. Kirk taught mainly English and some foreign students at Milestone. A few of the kids he taught came from difficult family backgrounds and he was surprised by what they saw at home and regarded as normal behavior.
The Times’ mistake is unfortunate – but sometimes mistakes do happen.
Hmmmm…the quote from the NYT:
In a speech on the House floor on Sept. 19, 2006, as he talked about school safety, Mr. Kirk spoke about “the kids who were the brightest lights of our country’s future, and I also remember those who bore scrutiny as people who might bring a gun to class.”
So before the comma he was referring to pre-schoolers and after the comma he was referring to the middle schoolers. While I don’t have the beginning of the sentence handy, I’m finding that to be a bit….ummm… ludicrous.
From the ILGOP Press Release:
But while Alexi is talking tough about BP today, according to the City of Chicago’s Board of Ethics disclosure forms, from late 2003-2008, Alexi’s Political Director Endy Zemenides — often referred to as “a top aide to U.S. Senate hopeful Alexi Giannoulias” – was lobbying for BP Bovis Global Alliance. This means that in 2007, when BP attempted to increase “the dumping of pollutants into Lake Michigan,” Alexi’s “top aide” was working for BP.
Zemenides appears to be working as an unpaid adviser to the campaign, but he is clearly a top counselor to Giannoulias, and is frequently identified as a “top aide” or “political director.”
That Alexi would hire a former BP lobbyist isn’t terribly surprising. As the Examiner’s Tim Carney reported,
BP has more Democratic lobbyists than Republicans. It employs the Podesta Group, co-founded by John Podesta, Obama’s transition director and confidant. Other BP troops on K Street include Michael Berman, a former top aide to Vice President Walter Mondale; Steven Champlin, former executive director of the House Democratic Caucus; and Matthew LaRocco, who worked in Bill Clinton’s Interior Department and whose father was a Democratic congressman.
So what does this mean? To be sure, this is not likely cost Alexi the election, though it may cause him to dismiss Zemenides.
But when you consider that BP is behind the largest ecological disaster in this nation’s history, and that they have clearly become enemy number 1 for liberals and environmentalists, the connection becomes more problematic. And when you consider what this crisis has done to President Obama’s first term, and that Alexi and Kirk are competing to win Barack Obama’s former U.S. Senate seat — the story becomes even more interesting. Can Alexi criticize BP while simultaneously employing a former BP lobbyist?
The problem with this stinging indictment? Bovis and BP work together on creating retail establishments for BP. Does that mean that the BP/Bovis Global Alliance wants lobbyists to lower regulations? Probably, but that most likely means in relation to the regulations for retail establishments not for drilling. This is like attacking a lobbyist for NBC the television network because the lobbyist works for GE and is then responsible for then responsible for GE dumping PCBs in the Hudson It’s technically true that the person lobbied for the parent corporation, but not terribly substantive.
Now, what this really reminds me of is that Mark Kirk used to have a good record on the environment and supported legislation to reduce carbon based fuels such as the energy bill he supported and then came out against right after voting for it. So if Mark Kirk wants to claim that Alexi has ties to the oil industry in an unpaid ad, that’s fine, but frankly, I’m more worried about whether Alexi is going to vote to fundamentally change the energy policy in the United States and not change his mind right after he makes that vote….
Mark Kirk wants it both ways in everything.
From the inbox
“I oppose the compromise that would exempt the NRA from the disclosure and disclaimer requirements in the current bill. It’s sadly ironic that legislation entitled the DISCLOSE Act would permit non-disclosure from one of the most powerful lobbies in the country.
Compromise is a necessary part of policy making, and any proposal that must earn the support of a multitude of diverse interests will never be perfect. However, this deal is not designed to represent a multitude of interests, but instead only to serve one.
In light of what this legislation seeks to achieve, the NRA carve-out leaves the bill an empty contradiction. The bill attempts to shine a light on the financiers of political messages designed to advance special interests. The deal assures a heavyweight in the room that it may stay in the dark.
This two-tiered system of campaign finance laws gets us nowhere. It not only chooses a winner in the gun control debate, but implicitly says that some points of view are more worthy of protection than others.
I understand that this deal originated from a well-placed concern that granting an exemption for all 501 c-4 organizations would allow corporations to game the system by setting up sham non-profits through which they could funnel money. But the remedy does not treat the sickness; it only creates another ill.
Today, there is sensible, bi-partisan legislation before Congress that would close the gun-show loophole which inexplicably permits felons, terrorists, and the mentally ill to purchase weapons without a background check. An organization that may allocate resources to defeat such legislation simply cannot be allowed to play by a different set of rules than one that seeks to advocate for such sound policy. There is too much at stake.
I applaud the goals of this bill and other efforts aimed at making our government more transparent and accountable to the taxpayers. But we do not advance those ends by picking and choosing who we will hold accountable based on power, influence, and fear of political reprisal. I will vote against any amendment that creates a carve out, and if such a carve-out amendment is approved, I will vote against the bill’s final passage.”
Good for him. Quite a change in the 5th District substance and style.
I guess I shouldn’t be surprised by some of the more left of the left who are constantly upset that Obama isn’t pounding tables and acting dramatic, but I am given he was nicknamed by some as no-drama Obama which was one of the best things about the guy. There are certainly valid criticisms of his Presidency and I respect those criticisms in general, but John Cole sums up my general take on it here:
All I know is that if Obama doesn’t stop the oil leak with his massive Kenyan penis and then give a rousing FDR/Trumanesque speech delivered using a grade 7.5 language level that gives Chris Matthews a blue-vein hard-on and then personally scrubs every drop of oil from the gulf without hurting BP’s profits and making sure every oil worker has a job, I’m out. I mean, come on. That isn’t asking too much, is it? And why don’t we have gay marriage and a cure for cancer? What a loser! If only he hadn’t turned off his progressive base, all this could happen. Ed Schultz told me so.
And he better wear a flag lapel pin while doing it.
There’s actually a good substantive straight bit above it, but that was particularly enjoyable.
Jumping on the Joe Barton apology to BP:
Following the lead of Representative Joe Barton (R-TX), God issued a rare apology to oil giant British Petroleum via press release. “I need to set the record straight, this disaster could have been averted. If nature was not there to be spoiled this oil spill would be nothing more than another land clean up from BP.” The Almighty added, “And let’s face it, I didn’t have to put oil-producing carbon based life in an area I should have predicted would be inundated with water and wet animals.”
Go read the rest.
I thought it was bizarre at first, but accepted that a church pre-school might well take in some students who would be disadvantaged and Kirk was projecting a bit. No, he was just making shit up. I still believe he worked there–records and memories from that long ago aren’t that good and if he was a work study student, there’s some record somewhere, but good luck finding it. Maybe I’m still assuming Mark Kirk has some connection to reality and that may well be a bad assumption, but it’s hard to believe he didn’t teach at the pre-school. Actually a male teacher at a pre-school is a pretty important thing and I hand it to him. Usually teachers at the elementary level or pre-school level who are male are treated with a fair amount of suspicion which is silly and bigoted.
But let’s make it clear, Mark Kirk’s statements appear to be complete fabrications and the both the Illinois GOP and his campaign are sending out ridiculous attacks that only reinforce that message. More power to them.
Rich puts this all in perspective though:
Mark Kirk is an accomplished, decorated Naval veteran who blew that reputation out of the water with unfathomable exaggerations about his military record. He’s an intellectual graduate of the London School of Economics who lied about his experience with liberal nursery school students carrying guns.
These accusations against Mark Kirk are no longer about mere “embellishments” or “exaggerations.” This campaign is now about whether anything he says is true, and why.
What disturbs many isn’t just the lying, but the fact that they are lies that make no sense. They are only marginally helpful and yet carried a huge downside as must be obvious to 5 Star Admiral Kirk now.
He’s making Bruce Dold cry…
“We all agree that BP should be held fully responsible for its complicity in the oil tragedy in the Gulf,” said Chairman Price. “In fact, BP has already begun paying claims. Any attempt by the company to sidestep that responsibility should be met with the strongest legal recourses available. However, in an administration that appears not to respect fundamental American principles, it is important to note that there is no legal authority for the President to compel a private company to set up or contribute to an escrow account.
“BP’s reported willingness to go along with the White House’s new fund suggests that the Obama Administration is hard at work exerting its brand of Chicago-style shakedown politics. These actions are emblematic of a politicization of our economy that has been borne out of this Administration’s drive for greater power and control. It is the same mentality that believes an economic crisis or an environmental disaster is the best opportunity to pursue a failed liberal agenda. The American people know much better.”
“They have to lift the liability cap. But if I was the head of BP, I would let the signal get out there — ‘We’re not going to be chumps, and we’re not going to be fleeced.’ And .
they shouldn’t be. They shouldn’t have to be fleeced and make chumps to have to pay for perpetual unemployment and all the rest — they’ve got to be legitimate claims.”
.
These are the two best examples of the modern GOP being pro big business instead of pro-market economy. There was a way to avoid paying into the escrow fund–follow proper procedures and safety regulations. Instead they got a massive oil spill. It should hurt BP and deeply for two reasons:
1) They caused the problem and it’s their responsibility
2) If they aren’t hurt, the consequences for not following the law and safety regulations oil spills become nothing but a small cost of doing business.
We are dealing with common public goods in the water of the gulf. That entails a common property right to all those states and communities along the gulf to the many resources of the gulf. Any damage to that public good is subject to paying compensation by the responsible party. We have complicated laws and rules to govern that, but the principle itself is at the center of a market economy and is simple to understand and is fair. All the escrow fund does is create a third party to objectively distribute the money. Anyone who thinks the costs will stop at $20 Billion is sadly deluded.
The other option is let the trial lawyers figure it out? Do the Republicans really want to do that? I didn’t think so.
Siding with BP or speeding up the process by which those who are harmed by BP’s leak receive compensation is common sense and fair. However, if the GOP wants to run on that–go right ahead.
Apparently Mark Kirk saw those preschoolers as pretty mean little bastards:
In a speech on the House floor on Sept. 19, 2006, as he talked about school safety, Mr. Kirk spoke about “the kids who were the brightest lights of our country’s future, and I also remember those who bore scrutiny as people who might bring a gun to class.”
Mr. Kirk declined an interview on Wednesday to talk about his time as a teacher. His spokeswoman said the congressman was referring to nursery school students in Ithaca, not his students in London, during that speech on the House floor in 2006.
Private British Prepatory Schools also taught him a lot about teacher development in the United States:
In a House Budget Committee hearing five years earlier, shortly after Mr. Kirk arrived in Congress, he talked about his time as “a teacher, both nursery and middle school.” He added, “I did leave the teaching profession, but if we had addressed some of the teacher development issues, which I want to raise with you, I might have stayed.”
Mr. Kirk left Milestone College in 1983 and began working on the staff of an Illinois congressman, John Porter, the following year and did not return to teaching.
To my 10th District friends—This guy is who is so tough to beat? Really?
ArchPundit