Friday, December 28, 2007

Mark Kirk Tapped for Analysis by Chicago News Media on Bhutto Assassination

As more evidence that Congressman Mark Kirk is one of the top go-to government officials that news media in Chicago turn to when a crisis erupts, watch Mark Kirk on Fox News from this morning.

During times of crisis, the American electorate tends to embrace those elected officials that have shown their experience and steady hand in sorting out the issues and charting a safe course forward. It's worth noting that Democratic hopeful Dan Seals has basically no actual foreign policy experience, and what little Jay Footlik has is limited to Israeli issues.

Jay, Dan, comments on the crisis? Or are you guys still trying to find Pakistan on the map?


Publia said...

One of the best things about Mark Kirk is that he is always willing and available to talk to the press.

Anonymous said...

Looks like the world events are shifting in your guy's favor

Anonymous said...

OBAMA back to earth.

The Pakistan Test
Some presidential candidates show they can respond quickly to a foreign policy crisis. Some flunk or foul.

Saturday, December 29, 2007; A18

THE ASSASSINATION of Benazir Bhutto presented U.S. presidential candidates with a test: Could they respond cogently and clearly to a sudden foreign policy crisis? Within hours some revealing results were in. One candidate, Democrat John Edwards, passed with flying colors. Another, Republican Mike Huckabee, flunked abysmally. Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican John McCain were serious and substantive; Republicans Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani were thin. And Barack Obama -- the Democratic candidate who claims to represent a new, more elevated brand of politics -- committed an ugly foul.

Let's start with Mr. Edwards, who managed not only to get Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf on the phone Thursday but also to deliver a strong message. The candidate said he had encouraged Mr. Musharraf "to continue on the path to democratization [and] to allow international investigators to come in and determine what happened, what the facts were." Those are words the Pakistani president needs to hear from as many Americans as possible. He has yet to confirm that the Jan. 8 parliamentary elections will go forward and risks a destabilizing backlash against his own government unless he delivers a full and credible account of the authors and circumstances of Ms. Bhutto's killing.

Then Mr. Obama committed his foul -- a far-fetched attempt to connect the killing of Ms. Bhutto with Ms. Clinton's vote on the war in Iraq. After the candidate made the debatable assertion that the Iraq invasion strengthened al-Qaeda in Pakistan, his spokesman, David Axelrod, said Ms. Clinton "was a strong supporter of the war in Iraq, which we would submit was one of the reasons why we were diverted from Afghanistan, Pakistan and al-Qaeda, who may have been players in the event today."

When questioned later about his spokesman's remarks, Mr. Obama stiffly defended them -- while still failing to offer any substantive response to the ongoing crisis. Is this Mr. Obama's way of rejecting "the same Washington game" he lambasted earlier in the day? If so, his game doesn't look very new, or attractive.