We know GOP Rep. Mark Kirk doesn't have much sympathy for the unemployed. But now he's trying to count Democratic opponent Dan
Seals as a member of that population. From a Roll Call article published Monday:
“After losing his bid for Congress, Seals did not return
to GE Finance and was unemployed,” according to a Kirk campaign memo
out last week. “Near the end of the 2006 campaign, Seals paid himself
$25,000 out of his campaign donor funds — an act that is legal but
strongly discouraging to donors ... in May, Seals filed his 2008
financial disclosure with the U.S. House showing only $3,300 in earned
income through the first quarter of the year.”
It's an odd criticism, especially considering that most candidates
for Congress take leaves of absence from work to focus on
hotly-contested campaigns. Archpundit agrees:
One of the most bizarre argument by the Frank Burns of
the Blogosphere and Kirk is that a candidate should be employed full
time while running -- which is convenient if you are an incumbent who
is paid by the constituents, can mail to constituents with franking,
can use your position to get your name out there, and generally have
every advantage of incumbency.
But leave it to Kirk to mislead constituents. As the Seals campaign points out in the Roll Call piece, the suggestion that Seals is unemployed isn't even true:
“Mark Kirk entirely overlooks the fact that Dan Seals
has worked as a business consultant and lecturer at Northwestern since
2006 and that Seals’ wife serves in a senior level corporate position,”
the Seals campaign memo states. “So the question is, what does Mark
Kirk find so objectionable that the Seals family, like many families in
the 10th district have two working parents?”
Not convinced? Rob at Illinois Reason reminds us that we can look to the local conservative blogosphere for more proof.
Continue reading »
