As for what the people of IL were thinking - well, they weren't.
They listened to Ruadio Rushwanda, watched FOX, read their conservative Op-ed writers, and didn't vote for a great candidate, instead choosing a lying stooge.

Well, you see, you have to say what you mean by 'pathological'. It's not the same thing as 'habitual', or 'amoral', or 'disgusting'.

Last time I checked, goal-posts were very heavy suckers, and as the Republican are continually moving such posts, I can't but wonder if they are sustaining horrible herniae in their efforts! -Kevo

obama says to Egypt, "Change must begin now!"

OOOOOOOOOOPS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is the same guy that demanded a "public option" and then sold it way to the insurance industry and then directly lied to the American people about it.

Why only one side in everything posted here?

Well, it was a close election.

Given the complete surrender of Republican realists on climate change, it's hard to fault Kirk for his flip flop. Let's acknowledge that at this point, you'd have to leave the party before betraying one of it's key anti-science tenets. But blaming it on Al Gore's marital problem is truly inventive.

Al Gore's problem is that he is a Democrat and has a penis, much like Bill Clinton.

On the other hand, the problem with Pelosi is that she's a Democrat, and does not have one.

From the desk of Senator Mark Kirk...

"...whose reputation for borderline-pathological dishonesty is well deserved..."

To print such a slanderous lie is pathetic, even for such an Obamanaut as Steve Benen.

I assure you that there is absolutely nothing borderline about my pathological dishonesty!

Based on my (educated and pretty liberal) family, Kirk got a fairly good number of cross-over votes because people remembered his moderate track record, at least in the Chicago area; it was also a way of voicing displeasure with the choice of Giannoulias as a senate candidate and the Illinois machine. To be honest, either candidate was bound to be an embarrassment at some point—Kirk because of his habitual lying and policy flip flops, Giannoulias because of his shady background. At least Kirk has the advantage of not being connected to Obama—anything dumb from a Senator Giannoulias would have been immediately connected to the president, resulting in the medium shitstorm of the century.

Anyway, I’m not sure how good a lock Kirk has on reelection in 2016. I’ve already heard Burris nostalgia, which says something, and there are always the rumors about Kirk’s “naval” sexual preferences, which shouldn’t be grounds for a resignation but would probably be anathema to the Republicans. He might also get primaried, à la Scott Brown in 2012. And with 2016 being a presidential election year, Illinois won’t be suffering the enthusiasm gap of 2010.

Speaking as an Illinois resident, I echo Beta Magellan - I held my nose and voted for Giannoulias, because these days I'd never vote for a Republican under any circumstances (or waste my vote by not voting for a Democratic opponent, though living in DuPage County as I do there are a lot of offices where I abstain because only Republicans are on the ballot). But I had to hold my nose; Giannoulias wasn't much of a candidate either, and it's not that surprising that Kirk won in a close race.

Agreed. Given Kirk's rep and confusion on sexual orientation (aka the rumor that his wife found him in bed with another man -- they're divorced now), he's the last one who should be bringing up "personal issues."

minot, @1:29PM

You seem to know the difference between capital and lower case letters. You seem to know where to use which properly. It is, therefore, most striking that *the only place* you use a lower case instead of upper is when you write Obama's name. With that kind of burnt-in hatred, exhibiting itself in childish pouting, you want to be treated seriously? Really?

What we in Illinois thought about was, "Oh, God, can we have a REAL choice?!" Mark Kirk's Democratic opponent was Alexi Giannoulias -- an ethically-compromised greaseball whose family bank collapsed over very, VERY iffy circumstances (some of which surrounded possible mob money laundering) and who, as Illinois Treasurer, was on the job when a fund designed to help people save money for college collapsed.

Believe me, we wished we had someone halfway decent to vote for ...

Maybe someone should ask Kirk why Gore's "personal and political collapse" has *anything* to do with the SCIENCE of climate change?!

@ EdgewaterJoe:
you'll remember that we did have someone more than "halfway decent to vote for." his name was david hoffman - for whom i voted in the primary. of course, since my vote in a illinois democratic primary is usually the kiss of death, we can see how far that went.

exlibra I might add what minot is incapable of is having a remote idea of what the conversation is about. I think it's some kind of Obama tourettes syndrome. Either that or minot is actually one of those old pull string dolls with the 4 or 5 banal cliches issueing out of it's lifeless pie hole.

Speaking of "science" (not that Republicans can), here's a url for a story about how China and other countries are developing clean thorium-based nuclear power. Good to know we'll be able to be one of their customers. http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/02/china-thorium-power/

"minot"

Because your side is over at Rushville and Becktown. Go away. And I think you have been told this before.

But let me explain this to you: Obama nev er said he was against the public option. What he said was 'I'm for it but those stupid lying a...holes over there in Rethug land, and a few of their fellow travelers on our side who think they might be able to sell their souls to get re-elected, they are against it so I can't get it passed in the Congress so I have to make a deal. Now maybe you don't understand the difference, or maybe you are just a BS artist. I don't really care, but this is the reason I dont want you here.

Oh and are you admitting at long last that Kirk is wrong to lie?!

Beta, DavidNOE and Edgewater Joe have explained it. c u n d gulag has no idea what he's talking about.

mellowjohn, Hoffman was not only a good candidate; I'm still convinced that he would have beaten Kirk easily once he got his name recognition up downstate. But there was no way he was going to win with the backing that Giannoulias had. Sigh.

I understand the painful choice you in Illinois had, choosing between a Republican and a *probably* criminal Democrat. The trouble is, considering how destructive Republicans are, *any* Democrat would have been better.

You may remember some years back, folks in Louisiana faced a similar choice - between a crooked Democrat and a racist, white supremacist. They wisely chose the Democrat - who was honest enough to admit what he was.

The trouble is, considering how destructive Republicans are, *any* Democrat would have been better.

We know that. We weren't able to convince a sufficient number of low-information independents and moderates of this. Kirk would have lost had he been an open teabagger; those guys still don't fly in Illinois' statewide elections. Instead, he successfully convinced too many people who weren't paying much attention that he's a reasonable fellow.

You may remember some years back, folks in Louisiana faced a similar choice - between a crooked Democrat and a racist, white supremacist. They wisely chose the Democrat - who was honest enough to admit what he was.

Actually, he never stopped denying what he was; everyone else just went on calling a crook a crook without his participation. And there is little doubt that were Louisiana to face the same choice today, Duke would be elected.

How did I miss the "personal and political collapse" of Al Gore?

We can only hope that Kirk is the Peter Fitzgerald of 2016--
a "one-termer." Kirk's election was an absolute tragedy.
No one (no one-not even Republicans) should be surprised at Kirk's recent stupid behavior.
It's the same Kirk we've known here in the 10th Congressional district for 10 years.
Here's hoping we can right the wrong of Kirk's election in 2016.