1. - Shore - Tuesday, Aug 11, 09 @ 11:14 am:

   I think it’s pretty indicative of how arrogant the Democrats have become in the state that one of blago’s top aides has the nerve to think that because of her work for him she could be a senate candidate. I read her comments about entrepreneurship in the sun-times this morning and nearly spit up my bagel. The only work that bozo created was for late night comedians, u.s. attorney’s, and reporters.




2. - KenoMan - Tuesday, Aug 11, 09 @ 11:34 am:

   I wonder if Blago will campaign/endorse with Cheryle Jackson?




3. - wordslinger - Tuesday, Aug 11, 09 @ 11:48 am:

   Is that it for the Dems for Senate, Gia and Jackson?




4. - Obamarama - Tuesday, Aug 11, 09 @ 12:41 pm:

   Slinger, of course that isn’t it. People all over the country are telling Roland not to give up his seat. Or was he going all over the country and telling himself that? I don’t remember. One of the two.




5. - uh huh... - Tuesday, Aug 11, 09 @ 12:44 pm:

   I have nothing nice to say about Robin Kelly or her roll out yesterday. In fact I was turned off by her statement in which she said that she’s running in effect “to give back to the community.”

   That’s the most played out and tired expression and when politicans use it, it makes me trust them all the less.

   It also reminds me of something that Bill Maher likes to point out, that when musicans and actors win awards how they are quick to thank God, as if God cares. (but his point is also that the thanking God is disingenous–especially coming from a rapper who praises drugs use/selling, sex and mistreating women).

   So, with all that said, I am voting for Kip Kirkpatrick. Besides, I think that Illinois government could use a bit of a break from career politicans.




6. - Mike Murray - Tuesday, Aug 11, 09 @ 12:47 pm:

   -Rama, I am pretty sure it was the latter. :)




7. - uh huh... - Tuesday, Aug 11, 09 @ 1:34 pm:

   Kirk, please don’t do anything more questionable. The last thing Illinois needs is for Cheryle Jackson or Alexi G to be voted into the U.S. Senate.

   The job is yours, so long as you don’t blow it before you get it.




8. - 10th Indy - Tuesday, Aug 11, 09 @ 1:40 pm:

   I wonder if PI is going to question Cheryl Jackson tweeting about her senate run on her Urban League account? The prohabition on not-for-profits campaigning are much clearer than the murkly military regs.




9. - 10th Indy - Tuesday, Aug 11, 09 @ 1:52 pm:

   oops didn’t see SEIU endorsed Giannoulias - it only a matter of time till they slam Cheryle for the tweets. :)




10. - Shore - Tuesday, Aug 11, 09 @ 2:17 pm:

    Any neophyte who follows politics would be smart enough to realize that a congressman at a VA clinic far away from his district was not there for congressional work. Please remember that Obama went to iraq on a taxpayer funded trip during his campaign and also as a u.s. senator toured schools ,factories and other things outside of Illinois.

    Hopefully this blog will step up its game as we get closer to election season, this is amateur hour.




11. - wordslinger - Tuesday, Aug 11, 09 @ 2:23 pm:

    –Any neophyte who follows politics would be smart enough to realize that a congressman at a VA clinic far away from his district was not there for congressional work. –

    Then what’s he doing at a VA hospital, campaigning? I thought you were a Kirk supporter. Time to step up your game.

    Congressional fact finding trips are easy targets, but I don’t have a problem with them. They should see conditions at federal facilities, and in war zones, first-hand.




12. - Mike Murray - Tuesday, Aug 11, 09 @ 2:36 pm:

    Shore, Why is this post amateur hour? Kirk just got hit by the media for doing something and then he did it again.

    He sent out a twitter while on “official business” at a VA hospital, that said he was at a VA hospital and that asked supporters to help get petitions signed.

    He is the one who said it was a mistake last time and that he would not do it again.

    I am not claiming that other pols have not done it, but until they do it again and it’s relevant to IL state politics, I don’t care about the past.

    I report what happens. If you don’t like that, then take it up with the Kirk campaign or find another news source.

    LIKE I SAID, the twitter itself is not a huge issue.

    Speaking of amateur hour… The issue is that the Kirk campaign is making stupid, avoidable mistakes that generate negative press.

    So I think u need to eat some more sweets Shore. U r way too salty.




13. - Laborguy - Tuesday, Aug 11, 09 @ 2:40 pm:

    Hey 10th Indy,

    PI slammed Kirk because he gave out information about where he was and what he was doing while on duty. ANd if you noticed the Pentagon acknowledged this problem just the other day when they issued new regulations pertaining to military peronnel usage of social networking services. So much for your left wing conspiracy. Your boy Kirk is going to bring himself down.




14. - Responsa - Tuesday, Aug 11, 09 @ 2:45 pm:

    Candidates’ “visits” to veterans hospitals and war zones for information, TV coverage and photo ops are time tested and completely legal with caveats. (Obviously, to pass out actual campaign literature at a federal facility would be a no-no.) But especially if a candidate is a sitting senator or representative– and serves on a congressional committee which oversees military matters– they obviously can’t be “banned” from any and all fact finding visits to a government facility during the period they also just happen to running for re-election or running for another office.

    Kirk regularly visits the nation’s VA hospitals as a congressman. Obama and Kerry as sitting senators often did the same while actively campaigning for the presidency. Kirk’s tweets while on active duty were questionable. Tweets in general are stupid and annoying. But over all this is a red herring.

    Candidates avail themselves of useful photo ops, link photos to their websites, and put them on mail-out literature. That’s what candidates do. Sometimes they even do it from the capitol steps or the rose garden–also federal property, I believe.




15. - Mike Murray - Tuesday, Aug 11, 09 @ 2:54 pm:

    ===That’s what candidates do. Sometimes they even do it from the capitol steps or the rose garden–also federal property, I believe.===

    I Agree, but i don’t write the federal campaign ethics statutes.

    ===Kirk’s tweets while on active duty were questionable. Tweets in general are stupid and annoying.===

    Exactly my point, I would just add that in addition to being questionable, Kirk’s tweets were a stupid mistake- one which he repeated




16. - Rob_N - Tuesday, Aug 11, 09 @ 3:00 pm:

    Shore, Responsa, etc. –

    Please explain how Obama was campaigning for votes while on his trip as a Senator to Iraq.

    What phrases did he use to ask people for their vote?

    Where were the signs, literature and volunteer cards to promote his campaign?

    And, to keep apples to apples, how many tweets did he post on his campaign site during the taxpayer funded portion of the trip?

    …Contrast that with the latter part of his trip when he visited Germany, France, etc. during which he used campaign funds.

    What Mike and Progress Illinois are saying is that Kirk was apparently using a campaign tool to promote his campaign while on Federal property, which is not allowed.

    Get your facts straight.




17. - Responsa - Tuesday, Aug 11, 09 @ 3:24 pm:

    Mike Murray, I appreciate all your efforts here over the past week and I really don’t want to get into even a friendly “back and forth” over something as inconsequential as Kirk’s tweets. But here is where I think the disconnect is. Mark Kirk is a naval reservist and is called up to active duty a few times a year while also serving as congressman. Then he moves back to reserve status. His first tweet was apparently while he was ON active duty and he admitted he was wrong and your quotes printed above say that he vowed he would not tweet again while on active duty.

    He made his new tweet while NOT on active duty as a citizen congressman. So I don’t buy it when you imply the two tweets were identical, that they were done under the same circumstances, that he didn’t learn his lesson and that he repeated his “mistake. His second tweet is akin to posting a “hey looky here” photo to a campaign website–which ALL candidates do legally, all the time. Thanks.




18. - Just looking - Tuesday, Aug 11, 09 @ 3:25 pm:

    What SEIU endorsed Giannoulias??!! Who would have thought that the Mob and the Maffia could get along so well?




19. - 10th Indy - Tuesday, Aug 11, 09 @ 3:31 pm:

    Laborguy - PI slams Kirk every chance they get because they are funded by SEIU. They don’t deny they have an agenda but that’s hardly a left wing conspiracy. SEIU endorsed Alexi so my guess is that they are going to start slamming Ms. Jackson next and will call her on her questionable tweets. Fact is they can make the tweet stuff look like something when its not just because the regulations are unclear. One branch of the service (Marines) issued a ban on social networking but you can follow the Joint Chiefs on twitter and facebook.




20. - Mike Murray - Tuesday, Aug 11, 09 @ 3:32 pm:

    Responsa, u r right. The two tweets were not identical violations. But both were at least ‘questionable’ (read as possible) violations. See Rob-N’s post above…

    Specifically: ===What Mike and Progress Illinois are saying is that Kirk was apparently using a campaign tool [twitter] to promote his campaign while on Federal property, which is not allowed.===

    And thanks for the civility. Much appreciated :)




21. - Mike Murray - Tuesday, Aug 11, 09 @ 3:34 pm:

    ===One branch of the service (Marines) issued a ban on social networking but you can follow the Joint Chiefs on twitter and facebook. ===

    The difference -and its a huge one- is that the joint chiefs are not elected officials.




22. - 10th Indy - Tuesday, Aug 11, 09 @ 3:40 pm:

    My point is that the military regulations are ambiguous at best. No one claimed Kirk’s on-duty tweets violated FEC rules. The claim was that they violated military regulations which obviously vary from branch to branch - some are actually encouraging the use of social networking tools among service members at all levels.




23. - 10th Indy - Tuesday, Aug 11, 09 @ 3:42 pm:

    and by the way - i’m still not convinced that a twitter account qualifies as a campaign tool.




24. - Rob_N - Tuesday, Aug 11, 09 @ 3:53 pm:

    Mike said, “The difference -and its a huge one- is that the joint chiefs are not elected officials.”

    Actually Mike it doesn’t matter if they’re elected officials or not.

    It’s campaigning for a political candidate while on duty or while in uniform which are not allowed. The Joint Chiefs wouldn’t be allowed to campaign for Obama or McCain (or Kirk) from their military twitter accounts just Kirk is apparently not allowed to campaign for himself while on duty.

    But, what they do on their own free time while on their own personal twitter account is up to them.




25. - Rob_N - Tuesday, Aug 11, 09 @ 3:54 pm:

    PS Responsa, like it or not the President lives in the White House (Rose Garden, Oval Office, and all). You’d be hard-pressed to find any of the 44 presidents who did NOT engage in political activity of one sort or another from home.




26. - Mike Murray - Tuesday, Aug 11, 09 @ 4:03 pm:

    10th, u may well be right. But this is all moot.

    I do not even care if it is a violation. It is a questionable violation that is a very small issue. And clearly you are aware that these regulations are ambiguous.

    So why is the Kirk campaign unaware? They just got burned for a similar mistake, and while not exactly the same, they should have been on the ball. Once you get burned by a fire, u shouldn’t have to get burned by the stove to realize that heat hurts.
    Instead they allowed the twitter.

    My point has been, and will continue to be, that it was just poor risk management by his campaign, especially since they just went through this a week ago. That twitter is not worth the possible national bad press.




27. - Rob_N - Tuesday, Aug 11, 09 @ 4:07 pm:

    10th Indy, Military regulations forbidding campaigning for political candidates while on duty or in uniform are very specific.

    What is unclear about the words “not allowed”?

    As for Twitter not being a campaign tool … is a phone not a campaign tool? Are email blasts not campaign tools? Everything from websites to postcards, not campaign tools?

    What is the difference if a candidate is using a piece of paper or a post online to promote their candidacy?

    If Mark Kirk had a Congressional Twitter page that he used as to relay Congressional info to his constituents about his progress on legislation, his constituent meetings, etc. that would be one thing.

    But he doesn’t.

    His one Twitter page — http://twitter.com/markkirk — is very clearly a campaign tool given it prominently displays him campaigning in a parade as well as a permalink to his campaign website and even his Senate campaign logo.

    To wit, half an hour after making the VA post apparently while on Federal property he posted a request for volunteers to help his campaign by circulating petitions.

    ———-
    # Help our campaign to reform Illinois by circulating petitions! http://bit.ly/17iXn
    8:28 AM Aug 10th from web
    ———-
    # Touring the Quad Cities VA Outpatient Clinic with VA staff - Stephanie Latham, Barry Sharp and Kurt Sickels.
    7:54 AM Aug 10th from web
    ———-

    In fact, his two campaign tweets while on active duty (July 25 and 26) were preceeded by a request for volunteers to sign up on his Facebook page (July 23).

    …As an aside, how precisely is he planning to “reform Illinois” from Washington? What is he not doing now as a Congressman to reform our state that he will suddenly start doing if he’s elected to the Senate?




28. - Tollway Joe - Tuesday, Aug 11, 09 @ 4:26 pm:

    If this Twitter thing is the best dirt they can get on Kirk, then we can all get used to calling him Senator.




29. - phil - Tuesday, Aug 11, 09 @ 4:31 pm:

    Query, is sending a Twitter form federal property more or less egregious than using taxpayer funds to purchase an SUV for yourself?




30. - Obamarama - Tuesday, Aug 11, 09 @ 4:39 pm:

    ===No one claimed Kirk’s on-duty tweets violated FEC rules.===

    I did. It is against FEC regulations to engage in prohibited political activities (also read: campaigning) on federal property. He was on federal property and he posted on his campaign twitter account. So…

    As far as your claim that some branches of the military are encouraging social networking, sure. But some branches are also doing this:
    http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/08/04/marines.social.media.ban/




31. - Responsa - Tuesday, Aug 11, 09 @ 4:41 pm:

    Rob N, you are of course correct about where presidents live. But my earlier post was not about the president. In that post I pointed out out that candidates (congresspeople, state and even local officials) regularly use the capitol and the White House lawn– federal property- to get campaign videos and photos which they then openly use in their ads and literature. Perhaps there are even tweets. They think this impresses the voting rubes back home. Most of us would agree this stuff does not constitute an FEC violation.

    Since you brought up the concept of the presidents’ political activities tho, let’s look at that. Yes, we probably can all agree that the occupants of the White House past and present DO perform significant campaign activities at 1600 Pennsylvania as well as from air force 1–again federal property. I don’t recall this presidential campaigning EVER remotely being made an issue as no sane person would make it so.

    Apparently, then, the only REAL issue is whether Mark Kirk’s tweets from a veterans’ hospital lauding his visit there, are wrong.




32. - Rob_N - Tuesday, Aug 11, 09 @ 4:44 pm:

    Phil,

    An Escape is a glorified station wagon.

    Ergo, to be in keeping with your hyperbole, progressives should be asking…

    Is driving a glorified station wagon as a state vehicle more or less egregious than being the subject of a Pentagon investigation and a possible FEC violation?




33. - 10th Indy - Tuesday, Aug 11, 09 @ 4:53 pm:

    Phil -

    Much more, which is why some would rather talk about twitter :)




34. - Rob_N - Tuesday, Aug 11, 09 @ 4:55 pm:

    Responsa, 2 points:

    “In that post I pointed out out that candidates (congresspeople, state and even local officials) regularly use the capitol and the White House lawn– federal property- to get campaign videos and photos which they then openly use in their ads and literature. Perhaps there are even tweets. They think this impresses the voting rubes back home. Most of us would agree this stuff does not constitute an FEC violation.”

    But they aren’t going there specifically to shoot campaign videos or have photos taken. In other words, they may have an incidental video or photo taken of a meeting with the president and then use that in material later but they aren’t specifically renting the White House to use it as a backdrop.

    And, I’m sure you know this but just to clarify, the FEC does not regulate state or local officials.

    “I don’t recall this presidential campaigning EVER remotely being made an issue as no sane person would make it so.”

    Actually, yes, it does become an issue from time to time. Dems brought it up in 2004 when W used Air Force 1 to jet around the country campaigning.

    In order to avoid that conflict, presidential campaigns set up campaign funds to reimburse the government for such travel. The president is still the president even while running for re-election after all. (And just wait til the hew and cry from conservatives in 2012 when O does the same thing W did.)

    This same principle is also why presidents set up re-election offices outside the White House, even as they still live and work in the White House.

    As a matter of fact, I think McCain supporters did try to make Obama’s planned visit (planned as a Senator) to wounded warriors in recovery in Germany an issue…

    So since both sides have done it maybe everyone involved in politics is insane. ;)




35. - Responsa - Tuesday, Aug 11, 09 @ 5:08 pm:

    “maybe everyone involved in poliics is insane ;)”

    Yes, I think we all suspect that and every new day tends to reinforce it all over again! ;)




36. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Aug 11, 09 @ 5:34 pm:

    If “questionable tweets” is all anyone has on Kirk compared with Alexi’s mob ties and Jackson’s Blago ties, I think Kirk is pretty good shape.




37. - Rob_N - Tuesday, Aug 11, 09 @ 6:01 pm:

    Anon, since you think it’s Father’s Day with all your tie quips…

    What about Kirk’s Rezko ties?

    Sheesh.




38. - SWC - Tuesday, Aug 11, 09 @ 6:58 pm:

    The twitter stuff is beyond stupid and I can’t believe you people continue to cover an issue like this. The fact this is an “issue” says more about the media than anything else. Move on people…




39. - Chicago-Dem - Tuesday, Aug 11, 09 @ 7:16 pm:

    Hey, if the most we can up with against Kirk is his twitting? Who the hell are these neo-dems? By the by, Responsa, people like you are begining to make a lot sense to me; keep posting, this blog needs you.




40. - Ahem...The REAL Anonymous - Tuesday, Aug 11, 09 @ 7:52 pm:

    Rob_N, Anon 5:34’s “tie” references are probably related to the Chicago Public Radio article. (Your “Father’s Day” comment regarding “ties” is kinda clever, though.)

    IMHO, while Rich’s initial thread re: Twitter was obviously worth looking into for needed clarification, this latest round of questions from PI seems perhaps a bit nit-picky.

    To wit:

    ============
    So when he sends out a tweet while touring a Veterans Affairs hospital, as he did this morning, is he violating the law that prohibits candidates from campaigning on federal property?
    ===========

    The tweet says “Touring the Quad Cities VA Outpatient Clinic with VA staff….” and was posted fairly early in the AM. Anyone who wasn’t being nit-picky would probably just assume based on the timestamp that the tweet had been sent prior to the Tour (i.e., “Touring (later today)) and just let it go.

    I guess it’s a slow news week, though.




41. - Ahem...The REAL Anonymous - Tuesday, Aug 11, 09 @ 8:36 pm:

    =================
    Having breakfast with Quad Cities Chamber of Commerce members….
    =================

    Oh, Dear! Is IP going to ask next whether Kirk posted this before or after he ordered his breakfast? I hope he politely excused himself from the table if he didn’t think of posting it before he actually got there.




42. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Aug 11, 09 @ 8:50 pm:

    Odd that so many people are coming out of the woodwork to defend Mark Kirk all of sudden. So when a Democrat like Dan Seals has a successful campaign event it’s actually horrible and a total misfire but when Mark Kirk possibly violates not just Department of Defense regulations but also Federal Election Commission rules it’s no big deal and we should all just move along?

    Somebody feeling some heat for making too many mistakes since that “perfect” campaign roll-out?




43. - Ahem...The REAL Anonymous - Tuesday, Aug 11, 09 @ 9:17 pm:

    Oof. Shook that tree and…nothing fell out. lol




44. - Arthur Andersen - Tuesday, Aug 11, 09 @ 9:49 pm:

    Keep Twittering away while Alexi doesn’t have to explain why he hasn’t recovered a dime of the families’ Bright Start money yet and Ms. Jackson doesn’t have to explain her qualifications for the job.

    Mike, fully agree with your post and Kirk’s mistake, but AA thinks it’s gonna take a lot more than tweets to take out Kirk.




45. - Ahem...The REAL Anonymous - Tuesday, Aug 11, 09 @ 9:55 pm:

    Good points, as always, AA.




46. - Quinn T. Sential - Tuesday, Aug 11, 09 @ 10:36 pm:

    Enough already with this Twitter non-sense. Got a complaint; file it with the FEC or the DOD, but quit wasting the bandwith here whining about it.

    There are far more important things to consider; like whether it will be Paul Froelich or Victor Snatana who will be replacing Berrios at the Board of Review.




47. - Rob_N - Wednesday, Aug 12, 09 @ 9:48 am:

    Quinn,

    According to CNN DOD is investigating Kirk.

    Murray is the one who posted about Kirk’s latest twittering flap and Miller put him in charge this week so you’re essentially telling the guy in charge to quit wasting his bandwidth. …OK.

    As for Berrios, I don’t think Froehlich lives in his Board district. (I think he’s in Houlihan’s district.)

    –

    All,

    The issue with Kirk’s tweeting is clear for those not too partisan to admit it… If Kirk can’t follow simple rules on the little things, how can the citizens expect him to follow rules on the big things?

    We’ve had enough in this state of so-called “leaders” on both sides of the aisle not following the rules.

    Besides, as Murray pointed out, in a race in the national spotlight making silly, sloppy mistakes like this opens a candidate up to a bigger problem as a meme emerges (if the other side is savvy enough to work that angle).

    Case in point, Kirk’s attacks against Seals for being a professor, having a wildly successful campaign event, etc. Kirk took those positives and turned them into negatives.

Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.