So the other day I criticized Dan Seals for his distortions of Mark Kirk’s voting record. I since discovered that Kirk apparently doesn’t want to defend his voting record and instead would rather go after the trustworthiness of his attacker.

From WeAreIllinois.org:

North Shore Democratic congressional candidate Dan Seals’ campaign on Tuesday defended using an Iraq War veteran with ties to the 9/11 conspiracy movement in a new TV ad attacking Republican U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk for supporting the war.

…

Last June, the Peoria Journal Star reported that Davis wore a black T-shirt proclaiming “Investigate 9/ 11@911truth.org” while sitting at a table at a Peoria library where books, fliers and DVDs supporting conspiracy theories about the 9/11 attacks were on display. The organization argues the government’s version of the terrorist attacks is fraudulent and offers a “Top 40 Reasons to Doubt the Official Story” and an “Official Coverup Guide.”

Kirk, who was in the Pentagon when the airplane crashed into it Sept. 11, 2001, called on Seals to stop airing the ad.

“I am disappointed that you would center your campaign on a spokesman who believes the U.S. government murdered nearly 3,000 of its own citizens,” Kirk said in his Monday letter to Seals, a Wilmette resident who is challenging Kirk again after coming close in 2006.

The reason Kirk is going after Davis instead of actually addressing the criticism is that voters are generally irrational, more swayed by personal narrative than facts and issues. So I understand the choice. But it tells us something about the state of political discourse in this country. Real discussion involves addressing the strength of your opponent’s criticism. Political discussion though, too often, bypasses the strength of an argument and seeks to have the argument dismissed out of hand. And we’re all worse off for it.

Like all politicians, Mark Kirk is simply a pawn in the political game. The failt lies in us, the voters.