Fuck its silent in here.......

[Gilgamesh]

Christ...Kirk's actually going to lose this thing, isn't he?

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2010/06/embattled-kirk-runs-from-reporters-after-forum.html

I told you guys.  The media's force-fed narrative of this being a disaster year for Dems is not true.

Sure they'll lose seats, but '94 it ain't.

And Kirk was bound to bottom out.  The Republican Party in Illinois hasn't fielded a credible statewide candidate since...fuck...Edgar, maybe?

[MAD]

Christ...Kirk's actually going to lose this thing, isn't he?

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2010/06/embattled-kirk-runs-from-reporters-after-forum.html

I told you guys.  The media's force-fed narrative of this being a disaster year for Dems is not true.

Sure they'll lose seats, but '94 it ain't.

And Kirk was bound to bottom out.   The Republican Party in Illinois hasn't fielded a credible statewide candidate since...fuck...Edgar, maybe?

What are you implying, Andy Martin?

[Chuck to Chuck]

Christ...Kirk's actually going to lose this thing, isn't he?

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2010/06/embattled-kirk-runs-from-reporters-after-forum.html

Kirk is in the same position George Bush I was.  The question is, will Alexi be smart enough not to say anything stupid?  I doubt it.  Alexi's best campaign strategy would be to go to Ixtapa for the next 6 months and let Kirk finish imploding.

[MAD]

Christ...Kirk's actually going to lose this thing, isn't he?

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2010/06/embattled-kirk-runs-from-reporters-after-forum.html

Kirk is in the same position George Bush I was.  The question is, will Alexi be smart enough not to say anything stupid?  I doubt it.  Alexi's best campaign strategy would be to go to Ixtapa for the next 6 months and let Kirk finish imploding.

Just wondering out loud here...what would happen if the Green Party candidate got enough votes to keep the top vote-getter from getting 50%? 

Because these two schmoes are currently looking like a worse choice than Blagojevich/Topinka.  Fuck this state.

[Gilgamesh]

Christ...Kirk's actually going to lose this thing, isn't he?

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2010/06/embattled-kirk-runs-from-reporters-after-forum.html

Kirk is in the same position George Bush I was.  The question is, will Alexi be smart enough not to say anything stupid?  I doubt it.  Alexi's best campaign strategy would be to go to Ixtapa for the next 6 months and let Kirk finish imploding.

Just wondering out loud here...what would happen if the Green Party candidate got enough votes to keep the top vote-getter from getting 50%? 

Because these two schmoes are currently looking like a worse choice than Blagojevich/Topinka.  Fuck this state.

Illinois is still a first past the post system, rather than instant runoff voting, so whoever gets the most votes, even if it's a plurality, wins.

[Tinker to Evers to Chance]

When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.

Godspeed, General McChrystal.

[MikeC]

McChrystal is an interesting soldier. Often says what others are afraid to say and headed up the secretive task force 6-26, that i believe found Saddam Hussein and killed Abu Masad Al-Zarqawi.

McChrystal was hand picked by Obama to be the top commander in Afghanistan after sacking Gen. David McKiernan. McChrystal also probably violated protocol by publicly releasing his surge of troops recommendation, which still hasn't been fully realized by the Obama Administration.

The big gripe coming out of Afghanistan is the Rules of Engagement problems. Most of that blame rightly or wrongly is being placed at McChrystal's feet. Judging by Obama and other Democrats responses to how the Afghan war was handled by air raiding/bombing villages, and killing women and children in the dead of the night, the ROE procedure is being dictated by the White House not McChrystal.

What a General can't do is speak up like McChrystal did, and for that he deserved to be removed. His replacement is David Petraeus who believes in a much looser version of the ROE that helped win the battles in Fallujah and turn the whole country of Iraq around. Patreaus's entire philosophy centers around this....

Doing so required establishing—and maintaining—persistent presence by living among the population, separating reconcilable Iraqis from irreconcilable enemies, relentlessly pursuing the enemy, taking back sanctuaries and then holding areas that have been cleared, and continuing to develop Iraq's security forces and to support local security forces, often called Sons of Iraq, and to integrate them into the Iraqi Army and Police and other employment programs.

Right now we don't do any of that in Afghanistan. It will be interesting to see of Patreaus will get to do what he wants in Afghanistan or will he be replaced when he is fed up. Patreaus is probably the best General we have seen since WW2, a really gifted military leader who isn't really liked by Democrats too much. He has been called General "Betray US" in full page spreads in the New York Times. He has been called a liar by Hillary Clinton who told him his reports, "really require the willing suspension of disbelief." On top of that before he even got his strategy put in place, every Democrat with a microphone said he failed at every turn and the war was lost. The man who every Democrat prayed and hoped would fail is now in charge of I guess fixing Afghanistan. Ain't that a hell of a reversal of fortune.

There is an interesting side note of military history that goes along with Patreaus. One of his handpicked guys H. R. McMaster is brilliant leader, he is most famous for the battle of 73 easting in the 1st Gulf War. If you want to know about something that military tacticians will study for the next 300 years, its that battle. But what probably got McChrystal in trouble was his thesis.....

He holds an M.A. and Ph.D. in American History from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, with a thesis criticizing American strategy in the Vietnam War and detailed in his 1998 book Dereliction of Duty.[1] It harshly criticizes high-ranking officers of that era, charging they inadequately challenged Defense Secretary Robert McNamara and President Lyndon Johnson's military strategy. The book was widely read in Pentagon circles and is listed on the official reading list of the Marine Corps.

I don't think McMaster ment going to Rolling Stone Magazine.

[Chuck to Chuck]

[Gilgamesh]

McChrystal is an interesting soldier. Often says what others are afraid to say and headed up the secretive task force 6-26, that i believe found Saddam Hussein and killed Abu Masad Al-Zarqawi.

McChrystal was hand picked by Obama to be the top commander in Afghanistan after sacking Gen. David McKiernan. McChrystal also probably violated protocol by publicly releasing his surge of troops recommendation, which still hasn't been fully realized by the Obama Administration.

The big gripe coming out of Afghanistan is the Rules of Engagement problems. Most of that blame rightly or wrongly is being placed at McChrystal's feet. Judging by Obama and other Democrats responses to how the Afghan war was handled by air raiding/bombing villages, and killing women and children in the dead of the night, the ROE procedure is being dictated by the White House not McChrystal.

What a General can't do is speak up like McChrystal did, and for that he deserved to be removed. His replacement is David Petraeus who believes in a much looser version of the ROE that helped win the battles in Fallujah and turn the whole country of Iraq around. Patreaus's entire philosophy centers around this....

Doing so required establishing—and maintaining—persistent presence by living among the population, separating reconcilable Iraqis from irreconcilable enemies, relentlessly pursuing the enemy, taking back sanctuaries and then holding areas that have been cleared, and continuing to develop Iraq's security forces and to support local security forces, often called Sons of Iraq, and to integrate them into the Iraqi Army and Police and other employment programs.

Right now we don't do any of that in Afghanistan. It will be interesting to see of Patreaus will get to do what he wants in Afghanistan or will he be replaced when he is fed up. Patreaus is probably the best General we have seen since WW2, a really gifted military leader who isn't really liked by Democrats too much. He has been called General "Betray US" in full page spreads in the New York Times. He has been called a liar by Hillary Clinton who told him his reports, "really require the willing suspension of disbelief." On top of that before he even got his strategy put in place, every Democrat with a microphone said he failed at every turn and the war was lost. The man who every Democrat prayed and hoped would fail is now in charge of I guess fixing Afghanistan. Ain't that a hell of a reversal of fortune.

There is an interesting side note of military history that goes along with Patreaus. One of his handpicked guys H. R. McMaster is brilliant leader, he is most famous for the battle of 73 easting in the 1st Gulf War. If you want to know about something that military tacticians will study for the next 300 years, its that battle. But what probably got McChrystal in trouble was his thesis.....

He holds an M.A. and Ph.D. in American History from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, with a thesis criticizing American strategy in the Vietnam War and detailed in his 1998 book Dereliction of Duty.[1] It harshly criticizes high-ranking officers of that era, charging they inadequately challenged Defense Secretary Robert McNamara and President Lyndon Johnson's military strategy. The book was widely read in Pentagon circles and is listed on the official reading list of the Marine Corps.

I don't think McMaster ment going to Rolling Stone Magazine.

Did you like The Overton Window: A Thriller too?

[morpheus]

Christ...Kirk's actually going to lose this thing, isn't he?

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2010/06/embattled-kirk-runs-from-reporters-after-forum.html

I told you guys.  The media's force-fed narrative of this being a disaster year for Dems is not true.

Sure they'll lose seats, but '94 it ain't.

And Kirk was bound to bottom out.  The Republican Party in Illinois hasn't fielded a credible statewide candidate since...fuck...Edgar, maybe?

Sure.

[Quality Start Machine]

Christ...Kirk's actually going to lose this thing, isn't he?

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2010/06/embattled-kirk-runs-from-reporters-after-forum.html

I told you guys.  The media's force-fed narrative of this being a disaster year for Dems is not true.

Sure they'll lose seats, but '94 it ain't.

And Kirk was bound to bottom out.  The Republican Party in Illinois hasn't fielded a credible statewide candidate since...fuck...Edgar, maybe?

Sure.

It's Murdoch. It's bullshit.

[Chuck to Chuck]

And Kirk was bound to bottom out.  The Republican Party in Illinois hasn't fielded a credible statewide candidate since...fuck...Edgar, maybe?

Sure.
[/quote]

So, that means what for Kirk and candidate recruitment in Illinois?

Sure?

[morpheus]

And Kirk was bound to bottom out.  The Republican Party in Illinois hasn't fielded a credible statewide candidate since...fuck...Edgar, maybe?

Sure.

So, that means what for Kirk and candidate recruitment in Illinois?

Sure?
[/quote]

So, you missed the part I bolded?  See, that was the part I was poke-sticking about, not the last sentence, which is undoubtedly true.

[morpheus]

Christ...Kirk's actually going to lose this thing, isn't he?

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2010/06/embattled-kirk-runs-from-reporters-after-forum.html

I told you guys.  The media's force-fed narrative of this being a disaster year for Dems is not true.

Sure they'll lose seats, but '94 it ain't.

And Kirk was bound to bottom out.  The Republican Party in Illinois hasn't fielded a credible statewide candidate since...fuck...Edgar, maybe?

Sure.

It's Murdoch. It's bullshit.

I don't think Murdoch has much to do with a WSJ/NBC News poll.  But, how dare you!

[Brownie]

And Kirk was bound to bottom out.  The Republican Party in Illinois hasn't fielded a credible statewide candidate since...fuck...Edgar, maybe?

Sure.

So, that means what for Kirk and candidate recruitment in Illinois?

Sure?

So, you missed the part I bolded?  See, that was the part I was poke-sticking about, not the last sentence, which is undoubtedly true.
[/quote]

O RLY?





But sure, the Dems option was soo much better....

Oh, and



Maybe that's it, but what "credible" candidates have the Dems offered since 1998? Durbin, Lisa Madigan and Obama? By my count, we are tied up at 3. And since Edgar has left office, we've had four years of a GOP governor running scared in the face of Operation Safe Road, so he completely handed his agenda over to the Dems. Then we got the Dems' greatest gift to this state for six years, followed by the affable dunce Pat Quinn. Seeing that Durbin, Madigan and Obama have definitely a few bits of clout in this state, I think we could question their credibility.

As for the Senate race, I will vote for the guy who promises to resign Jan. 3, allowing the new governor to pick his replacement. I'm really disappointed in Kirk. (He's still a better choice than Giannoulias, though). Both candidates remind me a bit of this guy.