Congressman Kirk, Defending America and 2010

by Chris Robling

I am not backing down from my admiration for Congressman Kirk. Mark is an honest patriot internationalist Republican who in his pinky knows more about defending this country than the entire Democrat caucus of the United States House of Representatives. What -- especially at the federal level -- is more important?

Will I tell him I wished he and three of his buddies had flipped in the well of the House as the ticker counted down and they saw their flip would have flopped the President's energy tax power-grab?  You bet I will.

I wish he had voted "No" all along.

But, on defending our country, our allies, our sea and air lanes of communication, our way of life and our future, Mark's at the very top in Congress. 

 

The Senate is considerably closer to these issues than is the House.  As a United States Senator, he will apply his knowledge as an antidote to endless Barack Obama-enacted, Samantha Power-conceived geo-strategic waffling, indecision and ambiguity, to say nothing of their new era of dictator preference.

 

I can say without fear of contradiction that no one who enters the race -- Republican or Democrat -- will surpass Congressman Kirk's proven ability in this area. 

 

We should encourage him to re-think cap-and-tax, I certainly will, but we should not lose the chance to elect a Senator who on day one will contribute mightily to the national defense debate in these perilous times, especially after what will be at that point 24 months of Obamaism.

 

As of today, Roland Burris is lowest-ranking Democrat on Armed Services and Dick 'our troops terrorized civilians like Nazis' Durbin is mid-ranking on Defense Appropriations.  Neither Illinoisan is on Foreign Affairs, which, given our Senators, may be best for our state's global reputation. 

 

If elected, I suppose Congressman Kirk will head towards one of the three.  He will increase the average of whichever he joins.

 

Does any one of us doubt that Congressman Kirk will speak from the floor of the U.S. Senate to characterize the Obama record of ignoring our safety and survivability as we head into 2012?  If we send Mr./Ms. X to Washington, what will s/he do?  We know now Congressman Kirk will be compelling in exposing the true costs of President Obama's foreign and defense policies.

 

As dispiriting as Pelosi's bare victory, including Congressman Kirk's role in it,  was, I appreciate his many votes opposing phony, wasteful Obama "recovery" spending, and his leadership against the 'public takeover option' in health care.  I am prepared to say we saw his worst vote last week, but I am not prepared to ignore nine years of distinguished service.    

 

And if anyone finds a Senate candidate who compares to Congressman Kirk on military and foreign policy, then let me know.  Beer is on me.

 

I have the distinct privilege of saying the first candidate in whose campaign I served was James Lane Buckley, in 1980.  Senator Buckley's concern for American freedom, peace through strength and strategically building U.S. defense capabilities was second to none.

Campaigning in Connecticut, we visited every United Technologies plant (with then-UT Chairman Al Haig greeting us at most doors), and those of Electric Boat, Norden Systems, Sikorsky, etc.  Senator Buckley, who served as one of New York’s Senators from 1971 – 1977, inevitably ended up briefing his briefers on their systems, based on knowledge he retained from his Senate service and his reading since.  He was -- and is -- that brilliant, dutiful and diligent and committed to American leadership.

  

Senator Buckley concluded all of his speeches on foreign policy that year by harkening to his high school graduation in 1939.  He said that even with night then falling over Europe and Asia, 1980 was a more dangerous moment.  Of course Ronald Reagan – and the American voters – agreed with him that fall, even though Christopher Dodd sneaked by Senator Buckley on his “We should hate ourselves more, and disarm ourselves more, too, because we are that bad…” tour. 

I cannot speak for Connecticut voters in 1980 (the Nutmeg State carried for Ronald Reagan), but I do know that Mark Kirk has the same commitment to our safety, security and leadership in the world as Senator Buckley.  The brilliance and dilligence I saw then, I see now.  As the first Congressman deployed in our uniform to a war zone since World War II, all of us know Mark's commitment to his duty.

Senator Buckley, as you may guess, espoused a range of positions much closer to my own.  But allowing differences with Mark on some issues to come between me and him going to the Senate may result in Illinois' own little Christopher Dodd sneaking out of here.  Because the world in 2009 is dangerous in ways we did not contemplate in 1980, I would hate to see that happen.  Every one of us must consider that result -- and its innumerable consequences -- long and hard before deciding, should any primary arise. 

Judge for yourself, I ask no one to betray their beliefs.  On Channel 9 this morning I said Mark has encountered resistance based on his cap-and-trade vote, which I think is fair.  Tell Congressman Kirk to do better next time, it cannot hurt. 

 

But when we talk about the U.S. Senate we should bear in mind its special role in our nation's security and our 2010 opportunity to send the best prepared Congressman of our generation -- by far -- to “the other body.”      

Comments

[elginite]

The primary issue concerning voters is not foreign policy, it's the economy and on that, Mark Kirk voted for Cap-and-Tax. It's hard to spin that as a positive for the economy.

If Kirk ends up as the nominee we will have to see who the nominee on the Democratic side is, because it is possible that the Democrat may be more conservative than the Republican in this race.

[John Galt]

Kirk would probably be the second coming of Arlen Specter.

[Dave]

the complainers on this site must be the far right spectrum with about 2% of Illinois demographics

Finally, we have chance of winning a Senate Seat and I think Kirk at top of ticket will help us win back Foster, Debbie, and hopefully Bean's seat.

Any news on who is going to challenge her? Top tier candidates?

[Sam Pierce]

Those who think Cap and Trade, Gun Control, abortion, and illegal immigration are bad ideas should shut up and fall in line behind the Dem-lite candidate?

[Dave]

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2009/07/senate_democrats_launch_assaul.html

Read this and watch the ad and realize just how scared the Dems are of losing this seat

Imagine Republicans winning the senate seat of current President not even 2 years into his term? Nice PR for our side

Get supportive now! The math is simple Kirk wins his district, Aaaron, Roskam, Biggert, Johnson, Manzullo, Shimkus plus he should win Foster, Beans and do well in Hare seat and he wins

Also it appears IL Dems may not nominate any African Americans for statewide office which should squash turnout there

[Elizabeth]

No way, Dave. Can't twist arms on this one. Kirk is a cap n'traitor.

I don't think the Dems will mind losing the seat to Kirk! It'll just be like a Dem has it, with the added advantage of the Dems being able to instruct Repubs on how to win elections: "Vote with Nancy"!

And hey: at least Foster voted correctly on the biggest tax increase on citizens ever. How about that! I hope he stays in office, esp if his opponent is a Hastert.

[Dave]

Elizabeth u aren't republican then

your hopeless

[Mark Thoman]

87% Obama, 83% Kerry in 2004, 84% Gore in 2000. What would you call that? Kirk wins because he's a typical IL-10'er: a RINO. He's peeled off D votes in the north shore, and can slam downstate to beat Chris Kennedy.

Another Kirk Approved RINO might hold 10. An across the board conservative and the DCCC pours resources into a Dan Seals again, another KAR they might shy away; twice burned that's cost them many millions to no avail.

[Elizabeth]

Actually, Dave, I am coming to see that sort of statement("not a repub!")as something of a compliment, esp in this state!

Hopeless as a GOP pawn, I am!

[GKB]

Congressman Kirk is a problematic candidate. There is no getting around the fact that he is vulnerable to a Republican candidate closer to the mainstream of the GOP electorate.

If a primary becomes a liberal GOP versus a center-right candidate you could end up with a divided party in the general.

It will also be interesting to see whether the Club for Growth decides to play in a primary for senate. That would be a cue for a lot of us as to whether to support Rep. Kirk or not.

[Frank Napolitano]

Kirk is far too liberal. You can call him a moderate, but we need a conservative, not a moderate to represent Illinois in the US Senate, and that is not Kirk. Republicans need not be Democrat light, they need to be conservative. They should be pro life. They should understand the second ammendment and every ammendment as well as the entire constitution. They should always be fiscally conservative and socially conservative. They should be for a strong military and they should be against amnesty for illegal immigrants.

[Dave]

The few on here attacking Kirk its time to put up or shut up.

If not Kirk then who can WIN and I mean WIN in November. This is Illinois people we have not elected a true Conservative till what Fitzgerald and that was more anti Braun win?

So can we PLEASE be honest and realize Illinois is blue state now and we need to rebuild the party.

I find many of u some frustrating

[Jim Caldwell]

Get used to it Dave, many of us are frustrated with the same old tired analysis that you are peddling. It's what has led us to virtual one-party rule in this country.
So you think Kirk is the one to rebuild the party? lol. good luck with that.

[Pittsburgh Steelers Fan]

Hey Dave,

Let's be real Mark Kirk is a Democrat. In 2008 he rated 190, which means 189 reps were more conservative than him. He was more liberal than Judy Biggert 163 Ray LaHood 182 Obama's and Tim Johnson 186 that were rated and Melissa Bean 205 and Bill Foster 233 were the most conservative Dems. Jerry Costello and Dan Lipinski rated more left wing than I thought.

Here are his Kirk's 2008 Rankings

Dist Party Econ
Kirk, Mark Ill. 10 R 42
Soc Foreign Comp Rank
43 41 42.2 238

Econ Soc Foreign Comp Rank
58 56 59 57.8 190

2007 Rankings
Kirk, Mark, R-Ill.-10
Lib Cons
45.5 54.5

[Dave]

u want to a compare and contrast of those numbers to Durbin and Obama please

People like u are the problem; you cry like river and throw hissy fit cause guy isn't 100% lock step when this is Ilinois a blue state and liberal at that

[Right on]

Oh for crying out loud, Kirk voted against the surge in Iraq.

[Bill Baar]

As Wright said of Obama, Kirk's doing what politicians do.

I'm in the mood for a winning GOP Politician and just as Kirk went with the mood of his dirtrict, I suspect he'll go with the mood of Illinois as the backlash against Obama and the Democrats grows stronger 'cause that's what Politicians do.

Count me for him.

[Yvonne]

Kirk in the Senate will not increase the strength of the GOP. He will be as frustrating and biligerant as Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe. He's said to have personal issues that could put us back to 2004's race. And he ultimately could become IL's Arlen Spector -- just what the Democrats would love.

[PeteSpeer]

Chris made a courageous post.

If Kirk were to win the Republican nomination for Senator, and I do not support him in that primary, I would support him 100% in the general election.

You want maybe Chris Kennedy or Gianoulis or Danny Hynes or whomever the Democrats nominate?

Party politics means fight like hell to get your man nominated and then fight even harder to get your party nominee elected.

Each Party is an amalgam of compromises. That is what winning politics is all about. Even in 1860, when Lincoln was elected as the second Republican nominee (John C. Fremont in 1856 was the first and he lost to a united Democrat bundle of compromises named James Buchanan) the Party platform was a compromise on the key issue of slavery. The party stood not for its abolishment but for no new state to enter as a slave state. Even then, Lincoln won because the Democrats split into three factions.

[Mark Thoman]

"He's said to have personal issues". If Kirk had issues Rahm's storm troopers would have been all over them last cycle.

Why go for a possible pragmatic win when we can have a certain idealistic defeat?

Fitzgerald didn't win because he was a conservative, he won because he wasn't corrupt (remember the Fab Five?). He had to beat Didrikson, the IL and national R's that polled against him, and against an incumbent Chicago Braun, that he beat by less than 3%, the first R in the seat in 20 years.

Peter Roskam (IL-6) beat the largest scale version of the D blitzkreig last cycle, he has first hand experience same as Kirk on beating their attack machine. I'd like to hear him or someone from his campaign weigh in.

[ILvotes]

If Kirk was at least a moderate it would be nice. But he seems to be a liberal with a decent vote here and there.

[Elizabeth]

Why? Because ideas matter. Getting another RINO into the senate, doesn't. I'd rather have a Dem in the spot, then a RINO, besmirching conservative ideals/values with practically every vote.

I know it's odd for some of you to imagine, but there are still folk out here, in the hinterlands, who hold their ideals pretty highly. We just won't sell out to see an R in senate rolls. Esp if the R votes more like a D!

[Erin Raasch]

US companies, big and small, are already making plans to leave the US if these monster bills such as Cap'n Trade and Healthcare pass. This is not a secret; it is easy to find this information. Many of these companies are leaving Illinois. As doing business in the US becomes increasingly difficult and jobs dry-up, tax revenues are also drying-up. As we have already seen, substantial budget cuts are already being made in US defense, and plans for missile defense etc. are being flushed down the toilet. Mark Kirk may be strong on defense issues, but with rapidly shrinking tax revenues, defense will be on the chopping board regardless - we won't be able to afford it. Cap'n Trade will, and should be, his downfall.

[eric blair]

I lived thru Sen. Chuck Percy -- and painfully recall the constant drumbeat of liberal pundits calling one leftist initiative after another "bipartisan," because they could point to Percy as being for it along with the Dems.

I'm not interested in seeing that again as would surely be the case with Kirk.

I voted against Percy in '84 and would at best be "gone fishin'" if Kirk were the GOP nominee in 2010.

If elections become absolutely meaningless, who cares anymore?

[10th Republican Voter]

How would a Senator Kirk vote on the absurd constitution-usurping treaties that will assult the Bill of Rights? Obama is bound to shovel plenty of these to the Senate given the current 60-seat Dem majority. We need to break that majority this cycle or suffer significant permanent damage. Given Mark Kirk's past voting on Hate Crimes bills and Second Amendment issues, one would do well to express concern.
he has expressly denied that his Cap and Trade vote was politically motivated, so one is left to wonder what his real motivation was for damaging what's left of the Republican brand.