Back in late July, (when Kirk first announced his campaign for U.S. Senate and began doing damage control from his cap n' trade vote), the Kirk campaign highlighted all the "Republicans positions" taken by Kirk in the 111th Congress. Among other things, they claimed Kirk joined Republicans in opposing the stimulus, opposing the omnibus bill, and that he personally "opposes all earmarks".
They also highlighted his support of Republicans on lesser known bills like the Ledbetter Act. Kirk's supporters proudly noted that "he also stands with Republicans on national defense. He is strongly in favor of missile defense, in favor of regulated immigration and in favor of keeping Gitmo open."
The full roll call vote is here: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll784.xml
Not surprisingly, the piece put out by Kirk's staff back in July about all the "Republican positions" he held is nowhere to be found on the web today. Similarly, Kirk highlighted the fact Sierra Club rated him "better than Obama" on "green" issues during his 2008 re-election campaign, but this fact was scrubbed from the Internet once Kirk jumped into the Republican primary for U.S. Senate and claimed to support his party 90% of the time.
This seems to be a rather disturbing trend with Congressman Kirk. First, he was for earmarks. Now, he's against them. First, he was for doing everything possible to win in Iraq. Then, he was against it. First, he was for cap and trade -- even after "reading the entire bill". But now that he's running for the U.S. Senate, he's against it. And a few months ago he was vocally fighting to keep Guantanamo Bay open.
Now, he seems to have backtracked on that. Hasn't he learned anything from the Kerry campaign? Voters certainly are willing to support a candidate who stands for "integrity" and "principles". The problem is Kirk doesn't seem to have any.