by Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Director
It's time for the Illinois GOP to request that Mark Kirk bow out of the U.S. Senate race. U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk's bid to obtain the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate seat to be vacated by Roland Burris in 2010 has, to put it mildly, got off to a rocky start. The 10th District Republican has come under fire, not only from social conservatives, but from fiscal conservatives as well. Kirk's votes on abortion, gun rights and radical environmentalism is contrary to the state and national Republican Party Platforms. Kirk was never going to receive support from pro-family Republicans, who perceive him as an enemy of the pro-family movement. But the negativity directed at Kirk from fiscal conservatives is most telling.
Some believe Kirk's name recognition and the backing of GOP "moderates" would put him over the top in his effort to win the Republican primary. But Kirk, to put it mildly, lost this voting bloc as well with his now well-known misguided "YES" vote on Cap and Trade.
For some reason, the Illinois GOP and a number of influential Republicans voiced early support for Kirk. Perhaps the Party was unaware of the visceral response that would come regarding Kirk's Senate bid or possibly Party leaders believed they could sweep Kirk's record under the rug. Well, it's clear this is not the case and Kirk's candidacy is doomed to failure.
I believe Mark Kirk should withdraw from the field of candidates seeking the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate. Indeed, Kirk would be better off if he followed the lead of U.S. Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania who had enough sense to read the writing on the political wall and decided to become a Democrat earlier this year. Specter realized, even if he won the Republican primary--which was highly doubtful--his experience as a politician told him the only way he could reelected was as a Democrat.
Of course, Specter's strategy violated the trust of Republicans who voted for him in the past. Indeed, Specter gets low points for character, even though his political decision was solely meant to serve his personal political agenda. On the other hand, Kirk should run as a Democrat simply because his votes more clearly align with the Democratic Party. Kirk admits as much--when he tells anyone who will listen--that his voting record as a U.S. Representative from the 10th Congressional District was contingent upon the wishes of his constituency. Now Kirk is telling Illinois Republicans his political views will change, if only voters will give him their support.
At first, I believed Kirk had changed his position on Cap and Trade simply to provide political cover to Republicans who gave their early endorsement to Kirk. These influential members of the GOP could then say Kirk has since reconsidered his vote on Cap and Trade--which many believe would be the greatest tax increase on the American public in U.S. history. But it is obvious Kirk's sudden change of heart and the fact he has since gone public concerning the matter has thrown gasoline on an anti-Kirk fire that is blazing out of control.
The truth is Kirk's candidacy is now hurting Republicans who have endorsed him. U.S. Reps. Peter Roskam and John Shimkus have come under withering attack from all factions of the Republican Party because of their endorsement of Kirk.
Rodney Davis, a spokesman for Shimkus, told RFFM.org that Shimkus and Kirk were on the same side regarding many issues which came to a vote in the U.S. House of Representatives. Certainly this rationale did not hold water with me and it is evident this explanation isn't passing muster with many Illinois Republicans either. The sad thing about it all regards the damage Kirk is leaving in his wake. Both Roskam and Shimkus have excellent voting records in Congress. But many now believe the support of Roskam and Shimkus for Kirk represents a political betrayal. Some call it "politics as usual"--a good ol' boy network which rallies behind a candidate solely because of Party allegiance.
The truth is most Republican voters are bound by factors which go far beyond the realm of party politics. They not only look at an individual's voting record, but they look at an individual's character as well. Mark Kirk has demonstrated he is sorely lacking in both areas.
There is no way social conservatives can vote for a man who supports abortion on demand. Kirk himself said, "I strongly support a woman’s right to choose, and also support family planning programs, so that a woman never has to make that difficult choice." Source: www.kirkforcongress.com September 9, 2000.
Kirk voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. He voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. Kirk voted NO on making it a crime to harm an unborn child during another crime. He voted YES on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. Kirk voted NO on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion information and he voted NO on banning Family Planning funding in U.S. aid abroad. Kirk's support for abortion is so strong, he is rated 100% by NARAL. [For more info see: http://www.ontheissues.org/IL/Mark_Kirk_Abortion.htm]
But for a moment, let's put aside Mark Kirk's opposition to the Republican Party's state and national platforms and the pro-family agenda. Kirk's vote on Cap and Trade and his subsequent flip-flop on the issue tells us more about the man and his politics. Millions of Americans understood what Cap and Trade was all about. A recent report indicates, if passed into law, the Cap and Trade bill will increase utility bills for average Americans by at least $1,700 a year. This figure would not include the costs businesses (who would also be affected by higher energy costs) would pass along to their consumers. Cap and Trade would have a devastating impact on all of us--rich and poor alike. In addition, the Cap and Trade legislation would result in the loss of untold tens of thousands of jobs (not just in Illinois, but nationally as well) and possibly further devastate our depressed economy. The Cap and Trade bill is so toxic, the Democratic-dominated U.S. Senate is reluctant to bring the legislation to the floor for a vote.
Are we expected to believe Mark Kirk and the seven other Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives who helped pass Cap and Trade did not know the consequences of their vote? If this is the case, Kirk is NOT qualified to hold ANY elected office, let alone represent Illinois in the United States Senate.
However, Mark Kirk's candidacy IS making history. There are web sites and blogs, run by Republicans who are devoted to his defeat.
Republicans United Against Mark Kirk for U.S. Senate [
http://no2markkirk.blogspot.com/] is one of them. In a recent Tea Party in New Lenox, Illinois--attended by an estimated crowd of 10,000--the only individual's name, when mentioned, to receive more boos than
Barack Obama was Mark Kirk.
To date, the Illinois GOP has NOT gotten the message regarding the damage Kirk is doing--not only to the Party, but to those who have endorsed him. However, this may be par for the course from a Republican Party establishment which seems hell bent on self-destruction. The "Republican right or wrong" mantra is no longer applicable, especially in these times when Americans are more aware of how Washington, D.C. is impacting their lives.
Most assuredly, there are those in the Illinois Republican Party who would prefer social conservatives find another political home. This was made clear when the Party threw all its weight, influence and money behind Judy Baar Topinka when she ran for Governor in 2006. Baar Topinka garnered 39% of votes cast in the general election. The so-called Republican "moderate" was soundly defeated by Rod Blagojevich--who was eventually impeached, removed from office and now faces criminal charges regarding corruption.
The GOP establishment keeps on telling us that true conservatives can't win, even though the last Republican to win a significant statewide election in Illinois was Peter Fitzgerald in 1998 who, in every sense, was a pro-family candidate. The truth of the matter is...Fitzgerald, using millions of dollars of his own money, won his U.S. Senate seat with little or no support from the Illinois GOP establishment.
Mark Kirk, if nominated by Republican primary voters, would have no chance to win the general election. The response to Kirk's candidacy from all sides of the Republican political spectrum is that visceral. However, there is a large field of conservatives seeking the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate. There is a possibility Republican votes will be split among these candidates, allowing the liberal Kirk to literally sneak in the back door. This would be a disaster for the GOP on many levels, leading to Republican voters staying home in 2010. This would have a devastating impact on Republicans seeking other offices, including highly-prized Congressional seats currently held by Democrats which are now vulnerable because of Barack Obama's radical policies.
Therefore, some questions must be posed to the leaders of the Illinois GOP: Is your support of Mark Kirk worth the damage his candidacy will do to the entire Party? Are you willing to put the heads of good Republican candidates on the political chopping block for the sake of Mark Kirk?
It's time for Party officials to come to their senses. Mark Kirk must go! I repeat: Mark Kirk must go! Otherwise, decent men and women who abide by Republican principles will suffer the consequences of Kirk's ill-advised candidacy for the U.S. Senate.
Kirk could gracefully bow out of the primary and resurrect his popularity among liberals and Democrats in the future. In all reality, the best place for Kirk is in the Democratic Party. Obviously, the man bowed to political expediency in his representation of the 10th Congressional District, while ignoring what his votes would mean for our state and country. It's time for the Republican Party establishment to acquire a political backbone and, for a change, do what's right.
Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact: Dan@rffm.org
NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected. No hyperlinks allowed.
