Posted: April 18, 2009

By John Biver

 

News reports tell us that Republican Congressman Mark Kirk from the Chicago area's north shore might just take the leap and run for the U.S. Senate. We're to know his decision by the end of the month.

 

Political consultant Cathy Santos said it best: Kirk is the new Topinka. And just as my colleagues and I helped educate people about Topinka three years ago (see examples linked inside this article), Champion News will do the same about Kirk if he chooses to run state wide.

 

Kirk needs to be reminded that Judy Baar Topinka didn't fare too well statewide against a very weak Democratic opponent once Illinois voters learned about where she stood on the issues. She didn't even reach the 40% mark in the general election against a man widely considered back then to be a subject of a federal investigation.

 

Mark Kirk and Judy Baar Topinka pretty much share the same ideology. But for accidental circumstances in their past, Kirk and Topinka would have been Democrats. Both Mark and Judy would love nothing more than to see the GOP become more like the Dem Party - that is, comfortable with big government and confused about human behavior and the social fabric.

 

While Kirk's service in the military is laudable, he voted against the troop surge in Iraq. In probably the biggest foreign policy vote of his tenure he showed extremely poor judgment by siding with then-Senator Barack Obama and MoveOn.org and against the president of his own party.

 

Kirk hasn't been much of team player, either, when it comes to Republican Party politics. He seemed very comfortable distancing himself from and criticizing President Bush, as well as bashing vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin just last year.

 

Kirk could long ago have joined the Republican reformers in this state but instead chose to stick with the failed leaders like Andy McKenna and the old Hastert staff that's still hanging around the state party offices. If Kirk has said anything meaningful about cleaning the corruption out of the IL GOP, I haven't heard it.

 

Lately Mark has been trying to get religion on spending. During the many years of the Dennis Hastert Speakership, Mark was silent on the big spending spree of the Republican Congress. When his leadership was needed back then - he failed to even try.

 

I've written about Kirk before (here and here, for example), and have said I have no problem if he sticks around as a north shore Congressman. Anyone fawning over him as a possible statewide candidate, however, is wrong on many counts.

 

And I'm quickly arriving at the place where I consider those who dismiss the social issues as mal-educated. Simply put, a party that can't even sell tax simplification shouldn't be pretending it has done its work to help people realize that civilization is behavior (read more here - especially here).

 

A word should be said about a recent article in the Weekly Standard about Kirk. The title of it showed the author didn't know enough about the subject of his piece: "In Praise of a GOP Moderate." It's not honest to call someone who is radically liberal on social issues a moderate.

 

Cathy Santos posted a piece here outlining Kirk's actual positions. He's proud of his support for abortion and so-called "homosexual rights." How do we know he's proud of holding those positions? He boasted of these positions while seeking the support of the limousine liberals when he ran for reelection to his north shore seat.

 

The subtitle of the Weekly Standard article is, "Mark Kirk is the party's best hope in Illinois." Many of us are used to national reporters and politicians from other states visiting here and talking about Illinois in a way that shows they've not done any homework. If they were smart they'd keep quiet, but they're not smart.

 

Outsiders simply don't understand how lousy and dysfunctional the leadership of the IL GOP has been and continues to be. And they don't understand that in states where there isn't much of a practical difference between the two parties - voters choose to vote for Democrats.

 

The Weekly Standard writer clearly had a good experience with Kirk on an issue, and that's nice. What does that writer think all of those Congressmen do every day? They mostly make people who come in contact with them feel good. Anyone who thinks that's a sign of the kind of leaders we need doesn't know enough about the role of leadership.

 

We've got a Congress full of those kinds of people and where is the country at today? In need of reform on every serious issue facing the nation.

 

If Republicans are going to be serious about a renaissance in this state, they need to get about the business of recruiting better candidates for high office. There are over 12,000,000 people in Illinois - surely there are several dozen who support the Republican platform that would make terrific candidates for the U.S. Senate. Let's find one.

_________________________________

 

Lastly, a note on Thursday from Americans for Truth's Peter LaBarbera reminds us about the importance of judgment in our political leaders:

Rep. Mark Kirk is co-sponsoring terrible legislation that could lay the foundation for ‘hate speech' oppression if it becomes law. Looks like the Homosexual (and Trans) lobby is getting behind HB 1913 - one of 3 hate-crimes bills. Can't we learn anything from Canada, the UK, and other countries re: the danger of state-sponsored pro-homosexual ‘thought crimes' prosecutions?

 

The following is from www.missionamerica.com:

 

Help Stop the 'Gay' Agenda's Hate Crimes Legislation

 

May criminalize sermons, and funds pro-homosexual indoctrination

 

HATE CRIMES BILLS predicted to move fast in U.S. House

 

There are three bills now in U.S. House of Representatives on so-called hate crimes, and all need to be OPPOSED for lots of reasons but the most egregious element is the "sexual orientation" language and opportunities for violation of religious freedom. They are also pork-laden, social engineering bills that are unnecessary in a time of what should be budgetary conservatism.

 

The key problem with hate crime legislation is that the crimes at issue through such bills are, in fact, already punishable crimes, and can already be prosecuted under current laws. All the "sexual orientation" category does is add extra penalties if opposition to homosexuality (the "wrong" attitude) is determined to be a factor.

 

This is used to prop up homosexuality as a legitimate behavior since it becomes "protected", and to falsely create a solution to a non-existing epidemic of crime. These bills also provide funds for "crime prevention" programs that punish and silence any opposition to homosexuality.

 

The latest bill has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee.

  

H.R. 1913,The Local Law Enforcement Crimes Prevention Act

This is the bill most likely to get action. It was introduced by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) and Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL). At its introduction on April 3, 2009, it had 42 co-sponsors.

 

John Biver is the Editor of Champion News.