by Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Director
On June 26th, U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk (R-10th District) was one of eight Republicans who voted for a bill commonly called Cap and Trade. HR2454 officially titled, the "American Clean Energy and Security Act" passed the House of Representatives, but has yet to be considered by the U.S. Senate. The legislation passed by a total of seven votes. Indeed, without the support of these eight Republicans, the Cap and Trade bill would not have passed in the House.
The Republicans who voted for Cap and Trade have come under a great deal of criticism. In fact, the bill is so toxic moderate Democrats have prevented the bill from coming to a vote in the U.S. Senate. Many believe Cap and Trade, if signed into law, would represent the largest tax increase in American history. Cap and Trade would result in the loss of millions of American jobs because U.S. industry would, most likely, move their operations offshore to nations like China and India. These countries will become even more attractive to industry because of less stringent regulations. Some say in these hard economic times, Cap and Trade could be a death blow to an economy which is already reeling.
Recently, I had a conversation with a spokesman for an influential Illinois Republican who has endorsed Mark Kirk's bid for the U.S. Senate in the 2010 GOP primary. I was wondering why and, more important, how a conservative Republican could support someone like Kirk in light of Kirk's votes on issues like Cap and Trade. I never fail to be amazed by the world of politics. But, in this case, what I was told truly took my breath away. The spokesman told me Kirk now says he would vote differently on Cap and Trade if he were given another chance. My response to this stunning remark was cliché-filled, but highly appropriate. I said, "hasn't the horse already left the barn?" I.e., the chicken has already flown the coop... Well, you get the idea. Kirk would like to have a "do-over" because his vote on Cap and Trade will negatively impact his political career in perpetuity. Of course, there's little need for speculation here on his sudden change of heart.
The blowback regarding Kirk's support for the Cap and Trade bill has not only damaged this liberal Republican, but those who were quick to endorse him have to explain "why?"
Didn't Mark Kirk know what the Cap and Trade bill was all about? After all, 168 Republicans got the idea and, more important, 44 Democrats also understood what Cap and Trade would mean to the nation by voting "no".
But things got even worse, during my conversation with the spokesman for the influential Republican endorser of Kirk's Senate campaign effort. Kirk represents a liberal district, I was told. Subsequently, this has influenced Kirk's voting record. This should be a surprise to no one. The inference is that Kirk has no principles and he is willing to say whatever needs to be said, to get elected. Most of us would then say, Kirk is in the wrong political party, wouldn't we? Or does Kirk's past votes mean nothing? Kirk--who is pro-abortion, anti-gun and to the left on many social issues--now expects Illinois voters to believe he really is in the mainstream of the Republican Party. I suppose it is all in the eyes of the beholder. Most assuredly, there are those who will simply say this is good politics. It's the misguided philosophy of "Republican, right or wrong." Character apparently means nothing, as far as Mark Kirk is concerned. So, we should all fall into line like lemmings going off a cliff. Illinois voters, both Democrat and Republican, should not believe anything Kirk says regarding the issues.
Now it's quite possible this is just an illustration of "politics as usual." However, I think mot of us expect more from our elected officials, at least we should expect more. It's called character and standing by your principles. Perhaps Kirk is not familiar with this concept. And if Illinois voters believe Kirk's sudden epiphany concerning his Cap and Trade vote is genuine, I have some very nice ocean front property in Nevada they can buy for next to nothing. Hey...next to nothing...that sounds like the substance we should assign to Mark Kirk's voting record. Kirk stands for next to nothing.
Now I'm not perfect and I, too, would like to have some do-overs in my life. But there comes a point when an individual in the position of Kirk should take responsibility for his actions. Seriously, if Mark Kirk didn't understand what he was voting for in the Cap and Trade bill, how can he be trusted with other important votes that will confront him in the future?
There is another variable that might be at work here. There is a very real possibility those who jumped on the Kirk bandwagon very early are trying to explain or rationalize their decision to endorse the 10th District liberal Republican. That wouldn't be out of the question either. In any case, if this doesn't leave a bad taste in your mouth regarding Kirk and Republican Party politics in Illinois, nothing will. It certainly is a sad state of affairs, isn't it? Pun intended.
To see how all members of the U.S. House of Representatives voted on "Cap and Trade"
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll477.xml#Y
Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact: [email protected]
NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected. No hyperlinks allowed.
Comments