CapitolFax.com - Latest Comments in Jack Ryan’s return?

Re: Jack Ryan’s return?

Anonymous — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:34:37 -0000

===============
If you recall, McCulloch said there were things in the file that it eventually turned out werenâ€™t even in there. The actual file wasnâ€™t damaging enough to destroy Jack. They had to make some stuff up. Recall for example Topinka going around saying Jack had forced his wife to have sex against her will, i.e. rape. It just wasnâ€™t true. There was no such allegation even.
================

Except there were "six paragraphs (or was it pages?) that the Judge didn't release because Jack Ryan's attorney talked him out of it, plus the stuff that had already been redacted.

Tough spin.

Re: Jack Ryan’s return?

Anonymous — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 15:51:25 -0000

==============
To each of their credits, Borling fired that guy and though the news outlets reported on the scene the guy made about the documents they did not report on the content since that particular set of documents was not obtained legally.
================

Yes. You'd think that if the Ds had faxed it to McCulloch, they simply would have, well...faxed it without worrying about "appearances".

Everyone always seems to conveniently forget that all of this didn't start with the Tribune.

It began with the fax.

Re: Jack Ryan’s return?

GOP guy — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 13:19:22 -0000

Jack Ryan told me once that it was someone from his 2002 exploratory campaign for Sec. of State who had seen the file (and yes, he did tell me who, but I won't say here for now). Jack had asked him to review, to get an opinion about whether there would be a problem if he ran. The guy was also a lawyer.

But because that operative from 2002 had to sign a non-disclosure agreement, he couldn't be the one to go public in 2004, despite the fact he had a personal ax to grind against Jack by then, over money I think.

So that operative passed along the info to McCulloch, and he was the guy who went public in the 2004 race for Senate. This is all being done don't forget within the war room of the IL GOP, where Topinka is then Chairman. If you recall, McCulloch said there were things in the file that it eventually turned out weren't even in there. The actual file wasn't damaging enough to destroy Jack. They had to make some stuff up. Recall for example Topinka going around saying Jack had forced his wife to have sex against her will, i.e. rape. It just wasn't true. There was no such allegation even.

It's not clear whether McCulloch even saw the file, or whether he just went on what the other operative told him orally. Or maybe both knew the big stuff was being fabricated. Who knows. We do know McCulloch was later convicted in DuPage on an unrelated election law fraud charge.

This is all what I've heard from sources I consider credible.

Bottom line, it's a travesty what Jack's own party did to him, or at least what a few of the old faces did (Topinka, Edgar, etc.). Talk about your circular firing squads!

Re: Jack Ryan’s return?

Anonymous — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 01:14:38 -0000

When McCulloch released the fax he had received, comments had been made regarding a wrong docket number. Was that a fact or another red herring?

Re: Jack Ryan’s return?

Rob_N — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 00:33:23 -0000

Heartless Libertarian says, "Seriously, what is wrong with him being there. May I remind everyone that in the US Senate there sits a man that was a member of the Ku Klux Klan, and a man that killed a mistress. So why is a private citizen criticized when he did something far less immoral than the other wackos in the senate?"

...I believe what you just did in your comment is also known as "criticizing" -- ie, it's not like any of their opponents ever let them forget those things.

And it was the Republicans that criticized their candidate Jack Ryan (he was no longer "private citizen" Jack Ryan but instead "Senate candidate" Jack Ryan). He lost fairly significant support from GOP voters and it led to him dropping out.

Democrats didn't support him to begin with, but after the lurid details came out they mostly shrugged it off. >Polling from that time indicated that 27% of Republican voters thought worse of Ryan after the sex club info came to light, whereas only 13% of Dems thought worse of him.

Re: Jack Ryan’s return?

Rob_N — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 00:19:35 -0000

Here we go again with the convenient amnesia that always seems to befall conservatives who defend (or at least excuse) Jack! ...

Will County Woman, Bubs, Truthy James and everyone else who continues to whine about the Trib going to court to get the divorce papers unsealed... here are the facts:

- During the divorce, neither Jeri Ryan nor Jack Ryan pushed to have the documents sealed. Under state law divorce papers are public records though exceptions are occasionally made.

- Well after the divorce was finalized but just ahead of his Senate run Jack Ryan went back to court to request that the documents be sealed. His now-ex-wife agreed.

As Truthful James indicates, they ostensibly were taking this action for the children though the timing seems suspect (if it was for the kids why not do it during or just after the divorce proceedings? why wait so long ... until just before announcing a Senate candidacy?)

- During the GOP primary for Senate, a member of Gen. John Borling's campaign staff went to the press with what he claimed was a pre-sealed copy of the Ryan divorce papers which he claimed held explosive and damaging information.

- To each of their credits, Borling fired that guy and though the news outlets reported on the scene the guy made about the documents they did not report on the content since that particular set of documents was not obtained legally.

- But, the Trib did soon go to court to get the once-public documents made public again.

The judge agreed, the Trib reported on the content, Jack dropped out, and the rest is Keyesian history.

....Bottom line: it's hardly the Trib's fault that a primary opponent's campaign staff went after Jack Ryan with those divorce papers.

And yes, the Obama campaign did encourage the media to look into the matter further but it was the Borling campaign (against the General's wishes) that first made the accusations public.

As we can see in the recent example of the Lake County GOP's FEC filing against Sen. Michael Bond that these types of "work the refs" moves are commonplace in campaigns, whether Jack Ryan fans (or Mark Kirk fans) like it or not.

....And GOP guy, you need to remove your tinfoil hat. ;)

Re: Jack Ryan’s return?

In the Land of Silos and Cows — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 23:16:58 -0000

It comes down to this ... Jack! wanted to hide behind his child. Jack is creepy, but to say, the documents need to be sealed because Jack! was protecting his child is as crazy as bringing you wife to a SECOND sex club. Jack! was protecting Jack!, and the issue is Jack! was using the child card to protect himself from seeming creepy ... how did that turn out?

Re: Jack Ryan’s return?

GOP guy — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 22:10:09 -0000

I meant Gov in 2006 of course.

Re: Jack Ryan’s return?

GOP guy — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 22:07:58 -0000

The Topinka cabal wanted Jack Ryan gone because he wasn't their guy. It's as simple as that. McKennas was supposed to have won that primary.

Jack was a rich guy who didn't need the old crowd. Even if he lost to Obama, he could have remained a big name on the scene and possibly been a contender for Gov in 2008. Jack was more popular than Topinka and that just wouldn't do.

The idea of Topinka being outraged over "lying" is absurd. She's the most dishonest person out there for one thing.

Besides, if the story is Jack said nothing in the file would "embarrass the party" it's hard to see how that's a lie. The IL GOP is beyond embarrassment.

Lastly, who cares what the guy did with his own wife at the time? The IL GOP backs lots of candidates who don't like girls at all. Maybe that's what they really hated about Jack.

Re: Jack Ryan’s return?

T.J. — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 20:16:43 -0000

"TJ is NOT Truthful James"

Uh, that's right. I've been T.J. here at least three years, never TJ or Truthful James or anything else.

Re: Jack Ryan’s return?

Anonymous — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 19:34:18 -0000

====================
Look, jeri Ryan has/had some serious issues. She started crying? Ok jeriâ€¦whatever.
--------------------

Wow. Sensitive. Next we're going to hear a "Sheesh" after the "whatever..."

Must be the "PR person" that was used for Jack's Bio online. You know, the one where it clearly states that Jeri had an extramarital affair with Brandon for everyone who can read to see.

And everyone seems to be getting along so nicely.

Sheesh...whatEVER!

Re: Jack Ryan’s return?

Anonymous — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 19:05:50 -0000

Or, is there no risk this time around?

Re: Jack Ryan’s return?

Anonymous — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 18:51:05 -0000

OK, I'll stay away from the stuff that's been re-hashed over a mlti-million times and just ask a few intriguing questions.

Is Jack Ryan going to announce that he's running? If so, for which office?

What if he decides to run for Gov? Proft v. Ryan would be interesting--an understatement, I'm sure--for a variety of reasons. E.g., what could/couldn't Proft say IF he signed a non-disclosure K when he worked for the Campaign? Will they go at it mano-a-mano, or will Proft step aside and "endorse" Ryan? The latter would be very interesting.

If Ryan decides to run for Senate (or even Gov or Kirk's seat), will the Voters he had before jump on board? The allegations were one thing; the release of the papers and some of it's contents were another.

Also, who leaked the papers? MuCulloch had once made a statement about that, but it wasn't out there for too long. Who had access to them before they were redacted and who had access to them after they were, but prior to release? Therefore, who still might have them?

Bottom line: who'll be willing to take the risk and why?

Interesting.

Re: Jack Ryan’s return?

Will County Woman — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 18:26:42 -0000

are you sure? i could've sworn that Jack ryan did admit to going to the clubs, but that he and his wife did not participate.

Re: Jack Ryan’s return?

Truthful James — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 18:08:12 -0000

Libertyville et al

Don't you get it. It did not happen. Jack kept quiet for the benefit of the kids.

Re: Jack Ryan’s return?

Will County Woman — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 18:04:34 -0000

heatless, it was the Illinois GOP that did Jack Ryan in. yes, the opposition got dirt on him. but, the GOP blinked too fast and made more out of it than voters would have. they should have just let him run; it would have been better for them than their plan b, which as we all know was a colossal failure.

Re: Jack Ryan’s return?

Skeeter — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 17:51:14 -0000

Watch out, Heartless.
They are all out to get you.

Damn liberal media refusing to ignore a story about an actress and sex clubs. How biased!

Re: Jack Ryan’s return?

Heartless Libertarian — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 17:49:14 -0000

Hey, a Republican male, trying to get jiggy with his wife.... wait... are we sure he is really a Republican?

Seriously, what is wrong with him being there. May I remind everyone that in the US Senate there sits a man that was a member of the Ku Klux Klan, and a man that killed a mistress. So why is a private citizen criticized when he did something far less immoral than the other wackos in the senate?

Oh, those other people are democrats... oh yeah... they must be good people. Oh yeah, billionaires supposedly fighting for the working man... yeah, good people.

Re: Jack Ryan’s return?

Redbright — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 17:45:56 -0000

WCW - Campaigns are about more than issues. One critical aspect is how the campaign itself is run. Jack Ryan flunked that test.

Re: Jack Ryan’s return?

Niles Township — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 17:28:21 -0000

Now, if Jeri Ryan had been scheduled to be at the event, I might have actually shown up. Jack Ryan, eh.

Re: Jack Ryan’s return?

CircularFiringSquad — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 17:26:37 -0000

Wow Can it get any better?
" was recently in a bar/restaurant, Stanleys in Lincoln Park and noted a very clever poster posted in the bathroom ...."

How about Ensign and Sanford too
Talk about the trifecta
Have a GREEEEEEEAT Confab

Re: Jack Ryan’s return?

Libertyville — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 17:04:38 -0000

WCW....I get that and I recognize couples particapte in things of their choosing. Still, participating in orgies still isnt something one would put in their ads (well, maybe some would)
One of my big problems with Jack! is that it is quite a difference from the conservative image he built in the primary. I am so sick of these hypocrites. And for whatever reasons the GOP seems to have more than they know what to do with these days. So, I say good riddance to Jack!

Re: Jack Ryan’s return?

Truthful James — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 16:53:49 -0000

To all

WARNING

TJ is NOT Truthful James

Re: Jack Ryan’s return?

Will County Woman — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 16:51:34 -0000

@ redbright, jack ryan was saying some interesting things before he was derailed. Of particular was his effort to court black voters by suggesting that the democratic party took them for granted. early on he pretty much had the media eating out of his hands...he was attractive, young, wealthy, and had taught in an inner city school. he initially looked like he had some promise.

Re: Jack Ryan’s return?

T.J. — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 16:44:32 -0000

Jack Ryan and Jim Edgar both need to go away. VanillaMan '12.