The Aftermath of a Senator’s Stroke

The Illinois senator is running for reelection after suffering a stroke. How much did it change his brain? And is it wrong to ask?

Getty Images
Alex Roarty
Add to Briefcase
Alex Roarty
July 31, 2015, 1:01 a.m.

This is how Mark Kirk wants you to see him. It’s a Ju­ly morn­ing, in a first-floor foy­er of a chil­dren’s hos­pit­al. A dozen on­look­ers are watch­ing him as he treks up a flight of stairs. But Kirk, a Re­pub­lic­an sen­at­or from Illinois, isn’t alone on this jour­ney. Trail­ing him, step for step, is a man named Eddy Brown. The 68-year-old Brown suffered a stroke in Feb­ru­ary; it left Brown’s speech slurred and his walk­ing im­paired.

Now, Kirk, dressed in a navy t-shirt and shorts, is chal­len­ging Brown to over­come his par­tial para­lys­is and reach the second floor. “Eddy, fol­low me,” Kirk says, turn­ing to make sure Brown is still with him. Brown’s reply is quick: “I’m with you, broth­er.”

The climb isn’t easy for the sen­at­or, either: In 2012, just a year in­to his first term in the Sen­ate, he too suffered a stroke. Today, his left side re­mains par­tially para­lyzed. He is of­ten con­fined to a wheel­chair and needs an aide’s help with some ba­sic tasks, like get­ting in and out of cars. As a res­ult, Kirk’s own trek up the hos­pit­al stairs re­quires a meth­od­ic­al ap­proach: lift­ing his right leg first, paus­ing for a second, and then swinging the af­fected left leg over.

But on this day, the 55-year-old Kirk is not a vic­tim; he’s the guide. And his protégé is fol­low­ing him up 21 steps, to the second floor, where cof­fee, re­fresh­ments, and the ap­plause of spec­tat­ors awaits. At the top of the stairs, as Kirk and Brown con­grat­u­late each oth­er, Brown’s wife, Mary, be­gins weep­ing—over­joyed, she says, to see someone show­ing that her hus­band’s life isn’t ef­fect­ively over.

The event—held in St. Louis, whose me­dia mar­ket ex­tends across down­state Illinois—was part of a series of gath­er­ings called “Kirk’s Battle Bud­dies,” dur­ing which the sen­at­or gives stroke vic­tims pep talks be­fore they climb stairs with him. “To me, this is the joy of my life, to meet folks like Eddy,” the sen­at­or told re­port­ers af­ter­ward. “This is the reas­on why I sur­vived a stroke, to be able to give back to my fel­low stroke vic­tims.”

Vice Pres­id­ent Biden (left) and a throng of sup­port­ers wel­comed Kirk (second from the left) back to the Sen­ate in Janu­ary 2013, al­most ex­actly a year after he suffered a stroke.

It was a genu­inely heart­felt mo­ment. But it was also un­deni­ably polit­ic­al. Kirk is up for reelec­tion next year. Even if he hadn’t suffered a stroke, he would prob­ably face the longest odds of any sit­ting sen­at­or. While Kirk is a re­l­at­ively lib­er­al Re­pub­lic­an, he rep­res­ents solidly blue Illinois, and pres­id­en­tial elec­tion years—with their high­er turnout—tend to fa­vor Demo­crats. Mean­while, the likely Demo­crat­ic nom­in­ee is a for­mid­able op­pon­ent: Rep. Tammy Duck­worth, who lost both of her legs in 2004 while pi­lot­ing an Army heli­copter in Ir­aq.

As he gears up for this dif­fi­cult cam­paign, Kirk’s staff is un­der­tak­ing an enorm­ous polit­ic­al gamble. Rather than hid­ing their can­did­ate’s med­ic­al struggles—as staffers for FDR to JFK have done—they have de­cided to em­brace them. Kirk’s first TV ad, which began air­ing in May, re­coun­ted how the stroke nearly killed him and de­tailed his long re­cov­ery. The cam­paign’s ar­gu­ment is that dis­ab­il­ity has fun­da­ment­ally changed the sen­at­or—hum­bling him and teach­ing him em­pathy for the chal­lenges faced by every­day Amer­ic­ans.

“A lot of us are very proud of fact that he is such a bet­ter per­son than he was be­fore the stroke,” says Kate Dick­ens, Kirk’s chief of staff. More so than be­fore, she ex­plains, he is “someone you can ac­tu­ally have a con­ver­sa­tion with, who can see both sides of something. Who is will­ing to un­der­stand the tough ele­ment of a con­ver­sa­tion and not just, ‘I already know how I feel about this.‘“Š”

But politi­cians don’t get a free pass to only tell their ver­sion of events. And so, if Kirk’s cam­paign wants to ar­gue that his stroke has changed him for the bet­ter, it also seems fair to ask wheth­er it has changed him for the worse. Has it af­fected his men­tal state, or his judg­ment, or his abil­ity to do his job?

Of course, ask­ing such ques­tions about a politi­cian’s health is a fraught en­deavor. When I brought up the sub­ject with Re­pub­lic­an politicos un­con­nec­ted to Kirk, many ex­pressed sur­prise and sug­ges­ted the top­ic should be ver­boten. However, over the course of more than a dozen con­ver­sa­tions with former and cur­rent Kirk staffers, al­lies, and con­fid­ants, I found that those closest to him ex­pect and wel­come the ques­tions. Field­ing them is ne­ces­sary, many of them say, be­cause dur­ing his reelec­tion cam­paign Kirk will have to calm con­cerns about his health. “Do I love that you’re ques­tion­ing it? No,” Dick­ens says. “Do I love need­ing to de­fend the in­tel­li­gence of my sen­at­or be­cause I hap­pen know he’s more in­tel­li­gent than the ma­jor­ity of the sen­at­ors up here? No, I don’t love it. But it is what it is. So I’m not go­ing to hide from the fact that it is a ques­tion. And neither will he.”

MARK KIRK FIRST entered Con­gress in 2001 and pro­ceeded to main­tain a vise grip on his cent­rist sub­urb­an Chica­go con­gres­sion­al dis­trict, even dur­ing the Demo­crat­ic wave years of 2006 and 2008. In 2010, he ran for and won a Sen­ate seat. A lib­er­al on so­cial is­sues but a staunch for­eign policy in­ter­ven­tion­ist, he has long been re­garded as one of the Hill’s most im­port­ant voices on na­tion­al se­cur­ity and the Middle East.

Kirk was al­ways ex­tremely smart—and, ac­cord­ing to those who know him, he was well aware of it. “He’ll prob­ably hate me for say­ing this, but he was a mi­cro­man­ager,” says Rod­ney Dav­is, a Re­pub­lic­an con­gress­man from cent­ral Illinois who worked as a staffer on the GOP’s get-out-the-vote ef­fort in Illinois in 2010. “I saw Mark’s fin­ger­prints on a lot of the de­cisions that were made.” “All of these guys are dicks,” says one top GOP of­fi­cial with ties to Kirk, com­par­ing him to oth­er politi­cians. “And Mark can be a dick with the best of them.”

On Janu­ary 21, 2012, Kirk began feel­ing dizzy and numb on his left side. Less than 24 hours later, he found him­self in an am­bu­lance, ask­ing a tech­ni­cian to hold his hand. As Kirk re­called dur­ing a pub­lic ap­pear­ance in April: “I held her hand really hard, be­cause “… I wanted my last breath on Earth to be hold­ing someone else’s hand. I was pretty sure the stroke was tak­ing hold at that point, that I was a gon­er.”

Rather than hide their can­did­ate’s med­ic­al struggles, Kirk’s staffers have de­cided to em­brace them.

But Kirk sur­vived, and weeks later, he trans­ferred out of the hos­pit­al in­to a re­hab­il­it­a­tion cen­ter. For about a year, he mostly stayed out of pub­lic view, save for two videos that provided up­dates on his re­cov­ery. Aides say now that, at the time, get­ting the sen­at­or to de­liv­er even a short scrip­ted speech to the cam­era was ex­tremely dif­fi­cult for a man who was lit­er­ally learn­ing to talk again.

Kirk re­turned to Con­gress al­most ex­actly a year after his stroke, climb­ing the Cap­it­ol steps while be­ing ap­plauded by a bi­par­tis­an col­lec­tion of con­gress­men and sen­at­ors, plus Vice Pres­id­ent Joe Biden. But even al­lies ac­know­ledge that the sen­at­or’s ever-present fa­tigue was mak­ing it dif­fi­cult to ful­fill his role. “Early on, I saw him and he was clearly not able to do his job,” says Ron Gid­witz, a ma­jor Kirk donor and in­flu­en­tial fig­ure in Illinois GOP polit­ics. (A few weeks after I in­ter­viewed him, Gid­witz would cause a stir when he put for­ward—then quickly re­trac­ted—a call for Kirk to exit the race.)

Gid­witz and many oth­ers say they’ve seen dra­mat­ic im­prove­ment over the past few years. In all of my in­ter­views with the men and wo­men in Kirk’s or­bit, none sug­ges­ted he wasn’t cur­rently up for the job. “I’ve seen him im­prove him­self men­tally,” says Dav­is. “He’s able to hold his own in any situ­ation—where I think he would even ad­mit when he first came back, it wasn’t as easy for him.”

Still, he’s not the same. Some of the change is good: Aides de­scribe him as mel­low­er, less prone to be curt with his staff or col­leagues. One former aide sug­gests that the stroke—and the real­iz­a­tion that life is short—also em­boldened him on policy. In the spring of 2013, Kirk an­nounced that he sup­por­ted same-sex mar­riage. “Pri­or to that, to come out and be the second Re­pub­lic­an sen­at­or to take that kind of bold stance, I’m not cer­tain he would have be­fore the stroke,” said the former aide.

Oth­er changes haven’t been as wel­come. The phys­ic­al di­min­ish­ment is ap­par­ent: It’s why he’s con­fined to a wheel­chair much of the time, why his left hand is curled in a ball, and why his face fea­tures a slight droop. His speech isn’t slurred, but the ca­dence of how he talks has slowed con­sid­er­ably. And, says Dick­ens, he’ll ran­domly be­gin talk­ing louder in the middle of a sen­tence be­cause he has been taught that stroke vic­tims let their voices trail off. “So some­times, you’ll just have a burst of em­phas­is, be­cause he’s re­mem­ber­ing to speak with em­phas­is,” she ex­plains.

Many around Sen. Kirk say they’ve seen a dra­mat­ic im­prove­ment in his con­di­tion over the past few years.

Aides are quick to ac­know­ledge Kirk’s phys­ic­al lim­it­a­tions, but they’re less in­clined to dis­cuss how he has changed men­tally. The re­frain from many of them is sim­il­ar: Kirk has the same sharp in­tel­lect he has al­ways pos­sessed. But some also con­cede that the sen­at­or, who once could give long, de­tailed thoughts about any top­ic ex­tem­por­an­eously, can no longer do so. It’s a con­sequence of the stroke, they say, that when he talks, he’s con­fined to one top­ic at a time.

“This is a guy who could walk in­to any room and, no notes, give a 15-minute speech on any top­ic,” says one former aide. “That’s not go­ing to hap­pen any­more.” An­oth­er aide com­pared his im­pres­sion of how Kirk’s brain has changed to movie-theat­er screens. Be­fore, Kirk had 16 pro­ject­ors up and run­ning at once in his mind’s eye, al­low­ing him to bounce from top­ic to top­ic with ease. Now, the aide says, it’s as if he’s down to one pro­ject­or.

MOST ALARM­ING, THOUGH, is the fact that, since his re­turn to pub­lic life, Kirk has re­peatedly found his way in­to the news for mak­ing strange state­ments—most in­fam­ously in June when he was caught on a hot mic re­fer­ring to Sen. Lind­sey Gra­ham (a lifelong bach­el­or) as a “bro with no ho.” That fol­lowed his April as­ser­tion that people drive faster through black neigh­bor­hoods be­cause they’re wor­ried about their safety; which fol­lowed his Feb­ru­ary state­ment to Politico that “if we have a suc­cess­ful ter­ror­ist at­tack, all the dead Amer­ic­ans from that should be laid at the feet of the Demo­crat­ic caucus”; which fol­lowed a Janu­ary in­cid­ent in which he ques­tioned wheth­er hu­man activ­ity was con­trib­ut­ing to cli­mate change. (That last state­ment might not have been un­usu­al com­ing from many Re­pub­lic­ans, but it was out of char­ac­ter for Kirk, who has long been an en­vir­on­ment­al­ist.) Most re­cently, Kirk told a Bo­ston-based ra­dio pro­gram that Pres­id­ent Obama “wanted “… to get nukes to Ir­an,” and used the pres­id­ent’s middle name, “Hus­sein,” when he spoke of him. In most of these in­stances, Kirk apo­lo­gized or walked back his state­ment with­in days.

Dis­en­tangling wheth­er the linger­ing ef­fects of his stroke might have something to do with all of this isn’t easy. Kirk has al­ways been someone who en­joys get­ting a laugh; some people who know him well say that, when “bro with no ho” be­came big news, they saw the tell­tale sign not of a stroke vic­tim but of a nerdy former House staffer who was just try­ing to fit in. “He’s hil­ari­ous, and he of­ten­times makes bad jokes,” says Christine Radogno, the GOP lead­er in the Illinois state Sen­ate. “Things he’ll say as a con­gress­man, you’ll just say, ‘Oh my God, I can’t be­lieve that came out of his mouth.‘“Š” (At a re­cent gay-pride parade in Chica­go, I watched Kirk tell a man—who was com­plain­ing that his travel-writer hus­band doesn’t take him on enough trips—that if the hus­band didn’t im­prove, “I’ll call SEAL Team Six and whack him.” Both mem­bers of the couple told me they thought it was genu­inely funny.)

In truth, nobody knows what role, if any, the stroke plays in Kirk’s pub­lic state­ments. Ask the people who know Kirk best, and you’ll find mixed sen­ti­ments. Many point out that he is simply someone who has al­ways ten­ded to speak a bit in­cau­tiously. (They note that, in 2010, for in­stance, Kirk was re­vealed to have em­bel­lished his re­cord in the Navy, falsely claim­ing that he had taken fire while fly­ing over Ir­aq and had been awar­ded the U.S. Navy’s In­tel­li­gence Of­ficer of the Year award.) On the oth­er hand, al­most all of the Illinois Re­pub­lic­ans I spoke to ul­ti­mately agreed that, though the stroke wasn’t the only factor, it has likely at least amp­li­fied Kirk’s pen­chant to shoot from the hip. “It’s clearly worse,” a high-rank­ing Re­pub­lic­an with ties to Kirk told me.

Med­ic­al ex­perts of­fer little ad­di­tion­al clar­ity about the con­nec­tion between Kirk’s stroke and his verbal mis­cues. Vic­tims can in­deed be less in­hib­ited fol­low­ing a stroke; if enough parts of the brain are dam­aged, in fact, a per­son can ac­quire an en­tirely new per­son­al­ity. But all sorts of things—psy­cho­lo­gic­al or phys­ic­al—can change the way a per­son be­haves in pub­lic. Per­haps a near-death ex­per­i­ence con­vinced Kirk that he didn’t want to waste time min­cing words. It’s also true that people change as they age, and dif­fer­ences in the sen­at­or’s per­son­al­ity might be the con­sequence of a nat­ur­al evol­u­tion, rather than the stroke.

“The only thing you can say is these are val­id ques­tions that people could ask,” says Vic­tor Ur­ru­tia, dir­ect­or of the Com­pre­hens­ive Stroke Cen­ter at Johns Hop­kins Hos­pit­al. “But there wouldn’t be any way that you could say with any de­gree of cer­tainty that ac­tu­ally any of these things that people are no­ti­cing are due to a stroke. It’s im­possible to say that.” His as­sess­ment was echoed by two oth­er ex­perts I spoke with, who both em­phas­ized that a defin­it­ive dia­gnos­is was es­sen­tially im­possible.

The best meas­ure­ment of a stroke vic­tim’s cog­nit­ive cap­ab­il­it­ies is a neur­o­lo­gic­al as­sess­ment, Ur­ru­tia says. But ask­ing for one, he hastens to add, verges on dis­crim­in­at­ory: “That’s go­ing to be hard to say without sound­ing like a jerk, just to be frank.” Dim-wit­ted politi­cians who say something stu­pid, for in­stance, aren’t asked to take an IQ test. And de­mand­ing that a stroke vic­tim pro­duce res­ults from a sim­il­ar cog­nit­ive as­sess­ment could quickly be­come a double-stand­ard. “There’s a lot of old sen­at­ors that of­ten say things that don’t sound smart,” Ur­ru­tia points out. “You could say the same thing—what if they have Alzheimer’s?”

SOME THINK THAT, if the stroke has in­deed caused Kirk to lose his fil­ter, he should try to turn this new trait to his polit­ic­al ad­vant­age. One former aide com­pares him to the Jim Car­rey char­ac­ter in Li­ar Li­ar, a 1997 movie in which the prot­ag­on­ist, a law­yer, finds he can no longer tell a lie. It’s something, the think­ing goes, that voters might ap­pre­ci­ate. “I think he should lean in­to it a little bit,” says an­oth­er ex-staffer. “He’s leaned in­to everything else. All the phys­ic­al dis­ab­il­it­ies and stuff—he’s not shied away from that. It’s some­what re­fresh­ing to voters to have someone say, ‘Yeah, I’m go­ing to say how I feel.‘“Š”

But would voters really for­give their sen­at­or for a few off-col­or com­ments be­cause his stroke has made him, as some in Kirk-world like to say, too hon­est? Or would the pro­spect of hav­ing a sen­at­or who can’t al­ways fil­ter what’s com­ing out of his mouth scare them away?

Bey­ond Kirk’s verbal fil­ter, there are oth­er ques­tions, too. For someone who struggles to speak ex­tem­por­an­eously, the back-and-forth of a tra­di­tion­al de­bate with an op­pon­ent could be dif­fi­cult. Cam­paign aides ac­know­ledge it’s a ques­tion they have yet to an­swer. “Can he de­bate?” one wondered. “Can he have a dis­cus­sion with a [news­pa­per] ed­it­or?”

How all of this should in­flu­ence Kirk’s bid for reelec­tion is very much an open mat­ter. When does the men­tal state of our politi­cians de­serve scru­tiny? And when does this scru­tiny cross in­to an ugly kind of dis­crim­in­a­tion? These are the types of things that Illinois voters will have to grapple with in the year ahead. “In polit­ics, any is­sue is fair game,” says Dav­is, of Kirk’s cur­rent situ­ation. “Be­cause if someone is think­ing it, they’ll likely write it. But it’s also up to that same politi­cian to turn what one thinks is a weak­ness in­to a strength.”

What We're Following See More »
House Committee Calls Mark Zuckerberg To Testify
19 minutes ago

"The House Energy and Commerce Committee will summon Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to testify, following recent revelations that Trump-linked Cambridge Analytica improperly obtained information on some 50 million Facebook users. 'We believe, as CEO of Facebook, he is the right witness to provide answers to the American people,'" said Reps. Greg Walden and Frank Pallone. On Wednesday, Zuckerberg told CNN that he was open to testifying. "The House panel said it plans to send a formal letter to Facebook in the days ahead."

Tillerson Receives Applause for Farewell Remarks
30 minutes ago
House Passes Omnibus Spending Bill
32 minutes ago
House Intel Officially Votes to End Probe
2 hours ago
"The House Intelligence Committee on Thursday voted in a party-line vote to release its controversial, Republican-authored report on Russian interference in the 2016 election, bringing to a close a contentious chapter defined by committee infighting. The report will not immediately be made public. It must first be sent to the intelligence community for a declassification review."
Trump’s Top Lawyer Resigns
2 hours ago

"The president’s lead lawyer for the special counsel investigation, John Dowd, resigned on Thursday." Dowd, who took over Trump's legal defense last summer, "ultimately concluded that Mr. Trump was increasingly ignoring his advice." Trump has expressed willingness to "sit for an interview with the special counsel’s office, even though Mr. Dowd believed it was a bad idea."


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.