The Tribune admitted that Kirk was the candidate they’d support based solely on the issues. “His positions mirror those of mainstream Illinois voters and, frankly, of this editorial page,” they wrote. He’s a socially moderate, fiscally conservative Republican. He supports policies that would reduce the national debt, curb deficit spending and downsize government.” {…}
“We aren’t physicians; Kirk’s doctor attests to his good cognitive health,” the editors admit. “But we are voters. And our reluctant judgment is that, due to forces beyond his control, Kirk no longer can perform to the fullest the job of a U.S. senator. We are unable to endorse him for another six-year term.”
From: Chicago Tribune Won’t Endorse GOP Senator Mark Kirk Because He Suffered a Stroke | Mediaite
Can you blame them?
When I go to vote for a candidate, the first thing I ask myself is “how likely is this person to die?”
If the answer is “pretty likely!”, then I vote for someone else because I have no desire to have an unelected person ruling over me.
No More Gerald Fords.Report
The last ruler to be elected to this seat was some secret Muslim from Kenya, and he just wandered off after a few years because he was bored. People die, they leave, they grow apart, that’s life man, don’t be afraid of commitment.Report
Offhand, given whether he could do the job would be known within the first year, wouldn’t his resignation that soon trigger a special election and not an appointment given how early in his term it is? I can’t recall whether the replacement method is really variable between states….
Assuming that a resignation (or death) in the first two years would trigger another election, I’d be more willing to vote for him. If it was an appointment situation, then worries over his recovery would be more of an issue for me.Report
Illinois is the same as Texas: gubernatorial appointment until the next election (<2yrs)Report
Other than the governors making the appointments being crooks instead of dimwits.Report
Don’t sell them short; many are also dimwits.Report
Yeah, I gotta say, that this being Illinois makes a difference.Report
So you won’t be voting for Hillary?
That’s not quite my reasoning for why Hillary is a bad person to vote for…Report
Part of the issue w/ Kirk I believe, as someone who will have to decide whether or not to vote for him, is that he did have a stroke during his single term and did not cast any votes for awhile or have much public exposure. I know how he wants to position himself: socially-moderate, fiscally conservative suburban Republican with an interest in foreign policy (that most voters don’t care about). Don’t want to fault the guy for something out of his control, but six years later I don’t know much more about him than I did last election, except he is an incumbent now.Report
If we read the Tribune article we see a somewhat different picture from the Mediaite article alone. The Tribune doesn’t rest its endorsement solely on Mr. Kirk’s having had a stroke. It claims to have evidence of him being less effective at his job since then AND it claims his opponent is meets enough of the Tribune’s preferences to make her a good choice (in the Tribune’s eyes).
In my opinion, the Tribune’s argument, as the paper presents it, isn’t convincing, although I didn’t watch the video of Mr. Kirk meeting with the editorial staff. I wish the tribune had devoted a little more space to explaining specific examples (in addition to the video) of where Mr. Kirk’s abilities fell short.
That said–and while I disagree with the Tribune and will likely vote for a candidate who is running in Sangamon and is remarkably similar to Mr. Kirk’s opponent–the Tribune isn’t acting quite as badly as the Mediaite article suggests.Report
The Tribune was worried that Kirk might be impaired because he spoke so choppily, hesitating as if he’d lost the power of speech, and then rushing his words to catch up.
Then they realized they were watching Star Trek reruns.Report