RSS Feed MenuThree Republican candidates hoping to replace Rep. Kirk in the Illinois 10th are distancing themselves from Kirk’s hard line position over the potential use of the Thompson Correctional facility to intern terrorists. Kirk, who is seeking the GOP nomination for Barack Obama’s Senate seat, previously told reporters that moving detainees to the Thompson facilities would make it “ground zero for jihadist terrorist plots.”
Kirk’s remarks sparked widespread criticism and opened him to charges of fear mongering and pandering to the base, and he has since moderated his comments. That three legitimate contenders to be the Republican candidate to replace Kirk, who has served five terms as congressman from the Illinois 10th, highlights the impact that the primary process may be having on the normally moderate Kirk. The “base” has expressed more than a little suspicion that Kirk may not be a “true believer” and as a consequence, organizations like the Club for Growth have been doing more than a little whispering that they might consider mobilizing their base behind a “real conservative” (in this case, the insurgent Patrick Hughes). If candidates for Kirk’s own seat are distancing themselves from his Gitmo statements, it means they think that hardline voters could scare off Illinois Republicans. Kirk of course knows the Illinois political landscape well, but with the Club and company hovering, he has a national audience to appease that won’t be voting. The risk of course is that in doing so, he will alienate the people that actually matter: the Illinois voters.
Its not entirely clear whether members of the base care more about purity or victory, but if its victory, it should back Kirk. Every day Kirk spends pandering to the national establishment is a day he spends pissing off Illinois voters.
MI-GOPer // Dec 3, 2009 at 11:58 am
Jeb, I’m not sure your pencil is as sharp as maybe it has been in the past?
Kirk is right to find fault with the Democrat interests in Illinois intent on helping Obama and Stedman-Holder find sanctuary for the Gitmo goons. Of course, I think they should skip the trials, release the goons and get them temp jobs as waitstaff in the Congressional dining rooms at the Capitol and see what develops. But that’s a fantasy rich with wonderful mind pictures.
Here in Michigan, our Democrat governor tried the same stunt and got ahead of the horses and wagon and parade just a bit… she wanted to take the goons and put them into a defunct, closed max security state prison in a town with 34% unemployment… the city fathers said Yes to any jobs from any quarter… even if the townfolk thought the risk too severe for the benefit of new jobs.
Turned out, there wouldn’t be any new jobs (sounds like the Stimulus Spending Spree results) for the town… those would be transferred federal jobs filled from outside.
In the end, the Democrat governor looked like an uninformed stooge intent on bailing out Obama –who helped bailout Michigan –who helped bailout GM –who helped bailout the banks –who wouldn’t loan to consumers –so we bailed out the consumers so they could buy cars no one wanted in the first place.
Kirk may have it right. The people of Illinois may not want to become the haven for terrorists… they are already ground zero for crooked politicians, the vote fraud industry and trial lawyers. How much bad karma can any one state take?
mlindroo // Dec 3, 2009 at 1:37 pm
> The people of Illinois may not want to become the haven for terrorists…
So putting former Gitmo detainees in an Illinois supermax prison such as the Thomson Correctional Center will turn the state into “a haven for terrorists”?
MI-GOPer, what exactly are you afraid of??
Former Gitmo inmates are hardly super-villains who can kill scores of Americans with their bare hands after all.
MARCU$
MI-GOPer // Dec 3, 2009 at 2:19 pm
Marcus, it isn’t a debate about what you think I’m afraid of, pal.
The article argues that Kirk is moving to the wrong side of the road by opposing something so level-headed as moving the Gitmo goons to Illinois. I explained that Michigan’s failed governor, Jenny Granholm, tried to suckle at the teet of Obama on this very issue and found herself quickly on the wrong side of facts… quickly embarrassed… and having to find a way to retreat with some pride intact.
Voters aren’t nuts about having Gitmo families move into an area and take up residence. Like the armies of old, around most prisons spring up a community of new folks with greater interests inside the bars than out.
I still think the best choice is to let the Gitmo goons off, get them temp jobs working as waitstaff in the Congressional Dining Rooms and see what develops. The guys who go str8, great. They guys who still want to carry on their jihad, well, we’ve helped them address their deep seated hatred and put them in touch with those who can best scratch their itch.
mlindroo // Dec 3, 2009 at 2:31 pm
> Voters aren’t nuts about having Gitmo families move into an area and take up residence.
These are foreign nationals.
Any estimates on how many of their “families” reside in the U.S.?
What’s the likelihood of obtaining an immigration permit to Illinois if you father or brother is a Thomson Correctional Center inmate and former Gitmo detainee?
MARCU$
stuiec // Dec 3, 2009 at 3:49 pm
“These are foreign nationals.
Any estimates on how many of their ‘families’ reside in the U.S.?”
Blood relatives?
Or members of their extended families of faith and ideology?
I wonder how many employees of the Federal correctional system are sympathetic to the Gitmo jihadists. You know, kind of like Maj. Hasan was — and I doubt civilian employees of the Federal government are screened more rigorously for jihadist sympathies than U.S. Army officers are.
mlindroo // Dec 3, 2009 at 4:11 pm
>> “These are foreign nationals.
>> Any estimates on how many of their ‘families’ reside in the U.S.?”
> Blood relatives?
> Or members of their extended families of faith and ideology?
> I wonder how many employees of the Federal correctional system are sympathetic
> to the Gitmo jihadists. You know, kind of like Maj. Hasan was — and I doubt civilian
> employees of the Federal government are screened more rigorously for jihadist
> sympathies than U.S. Army officers are.
Let’s do some quick math here.
As of 2007 the U.S. kept 7.2 MILLION PEOPLE behind bars.
The current Gitmo population is 215 persons.
That’s 0.003% of the total.
Are you seriously suggesting all kinds of bad things will happen if we add this 0.003% to a select number of himax prisons?
MARCU$
BarryS // Dec 3, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Marcu$. You are asking for a common sense response. You will not get one, even if you wait till doomsday. Forget trying to talk rationally to these people reality does not have a Republican bias.
MI-GOPer // Dec 3, 2009 at 5:51 pm
BarryS, it isn’t a question of our rationality. We are; it’s the democrats who think putting terrorists on trial in an international media market won’t result in the terrorists gaining a pulpit on the world stage.
By the way, you might want to think about cutting down on your posts in all these multiple names and fake characters –pick one, stick with it. The fraud is out, the lie’s been uncovered. The Troll Tribe has been exposed.
Demosthenes // Dec 3, 2009 at 5:52 pm
MI-GOPer’s illogical uninformed comments on moving GITMO criminals to a supermax facility in Illinois crystalize why I am no longer a Republican, but an Independent. These criminals will be in the slammer, under lock and heavily guarded. Most Republicans, rather than applauding putting these criminals behind bars, are peeing their pants in fear, and want to just give up our legal system and just use perpetual detention. Sickening and sad.
I would add that I live in Mr. Kirk’s district, and voters there liked the moderate version of him, not the new right wing teabagger model. Mr. Kirk is ensuring his own defeat by his pandering to the stupid teabaggers like MI-GOPer, since Independents like me will not vote for him.
MI-GOPer // Dec 3, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Marcus, like I said above, it isn’t what I’m afraid of… and you keep wanting to spin the thread away from the topic.
Are you taking lessons from automaticBS’er again?
The line here is that Kirk is somehow jumping into bed with the reactionary Right on the Gitmo issue and will alienate all Illinois voters. It isn’t true. Sometimes even leaders get public policy wrong and Kirk is smart to be on the right side of the battle –just like Harry gReid on nuke waste in Nevada. Same thing: you don’t want Gitmo terrorist hangers-on living near by.
As for threats, real and imagined, if it’s such a terrific idea to move these folks out of Gitmo and onto US soil, let’s ask why no state is clamoring for the Gitmo Resort except those states uniquely muscled by Obama and his Chicago thugs?
It can’t be because they’re worried, no? Hmmmm… according to the far Left, a few years ago Republicans were working with Montana to set up gay concentration camps. I heard even the cattle in Montana opposed that relocation effort –fictional as it might be– and they don’t vote.
MI-GOPer // Dec 3, 2009 at 6:06 pm
Ahhh, we forgot about Demo!
Sounding a bit like Mr Face, balconesfault, Moderate, BarryS, RioRancho, HardlyConservative (love that one) and a few others there. Welcome back under whatever name!
“… why I am no longer a Republican, but an Independent” and “…I live in Mr. Kirk’s district”.
Sure you do sweetheart. With that kind of “let me just say” folksiness, you’re as transparent as the other incarnations. You really need to either change syntax or grammatical structure ’cause you sound just like the others in your Troll Tribe.
BTW, the last poll has opposition to the Gitmo Illinois BailOut Obama Prison scheme at 58% opposed.
You were saying?
Stewardship // Dec 4, 2009 at 8:49 am
Unfortunately, Republicans who are moderate on a single issue or many issues, need to appease the core hard-right voters who show up on primary day. Primaries are the fairest way to select candidates for the general election (as opposed to smoke filled rooms or caucuses held in Iowa senior centers).
This almost automatically guarantees any GOP candidate not aligned 100% with Rush Limbaugh will be labeled a ‘flip-flopper’.
It would be interesting– as a one-off experiment–to eliminate party labels in one purple state and observe how candidates position themselves to win.
sinz54 // Dec 5, 2009 at 1:01 pm
stuiec: I wonder how many employees of the Federal correctional system are sympathetic to the Gitmo jihadists. You know, kind of like Maj. Hasan was
Hasan was not a member of the Federal correctional system. He was military. So isn’t leaving the terrorists in Gitmo under control of our military just as much of a risk? How do you know there aren’t any sleeper agents among the Gitmo guards either?
sinz54 // Dec 5, 2009 at 1:04 pm
MI-GOPer: it’s the democrats who think putting terrorists on trial in an international media market won’t result in the terrorists gaining a pulpit on the world stage.
That’s a different issue.
I prefer military tribunals for all al-Qaeda captured overseas.
But as to where to put them AFTER they’ve been sentenced, SuperMax should provide adequate security–except that common criminals have never used hijacked airplanes as cruise missiles. So I would recommend that the SuperMax facility be routinely patrolled by military AWACS (radar picket) aircraft. That would prevent a terrorist hijacking a LearJet or the equivalent, filling it full of explosives, and crashing it into the SuperMax prison.
sinz54 // Dec 5, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Stewardship: It would be interesting– as a one-off experiment–to eliminate party labels in one purple state and observe how candidates position themselves to win.
Some states, like WI and NH, have so-called “open primaries,” in which you can vote in any party’s primary regardless of whether you are a member of that party.
In 2008, McCain won the primaries in those states (and infuriated the GOP base by winning the nomination with the votes of non-Republicans).