Kirk for Senate?

Steve Sheffey — July 8, 2009 – 6:03 pm | Congress | GOP Hypocrisies | Israel | Republicans | Separation of Church & State Comments (0) Add a comment

The Washington Post and other news outlets are reporting that Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) will run for the Illinois Senate seat currently held by Senator Roland Burris (D-IL).

Kirk is good on some issues, not so good on other issues. He’s bright and articulate. He’s a fascinating political study because he’s manufactured a moderate image that belies his commitment to a right-wing Republican agenda and to leaders who support that agenda — an agenda sometimes at odds with Kirk’s rhetoric and the positions that Kirk claims to support.

Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) — a strong friend of Israel — said last year that, “Mark Kirk is the classic example of a Congressman who strikes a moderate tone in his district, but votes with the Republican leadership 87% of the time.”

Kirk is particularly good at manipulating the emotions of pro-Israel voters. He spoke at my synagogue a couple of years ago, and even I almost applauded. I voted for Kirk in 2004 solely because I knew Kirk was pro-Israel and I was concerned that his opponent, Lee Goodman, might not be. I’d vote for Kirk again if he ran against someone who was questionable on Israel because Israel is my #1 issue.

Kirk’s advocacy for Israel is his biggest plus. But contrary to the hyperbolic claims of some of his supporters, he’s hardly indispensable, and it would come as news to many pro-Israel members of Congress with far more power and experience than Kirk that Kirk is Israel’s best friend in Congress.

There are real differences between Democrats and Republicans, but Israel is not one of them. Don’t let anyone divide our community by turning Israel into a partisan issue. When two pro-Israel candidates run against each other, we should celebrate the bi-partisan consensus on Israel and focus on issues where the candidates differ.

Israel is one of the few issues where nearly all members of Congress agree, but Kirk is weak on other parts of the Jewish agenda. Kirk’s record shows a different Congressman from the independent moderate he claims to be. Consider the facts:

• Kirk voted against equal pay for women.  He voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009.  Republicans voted against equal pay for women 166-3.  But Democrats voted 244-5 in favor, so it passed the House, and President Barack Obama signed it into law.

• Kirk voted for federal intervention in the Terri Schiavo case. He voted for the Terri Schiavo Restoration Act, which required the federal government to forcibly insert a feeding tube into a woman who had been in a vegetative state for 15 years, against the wishes of her husband.  Democrats said at the time that “Michael Schiavo is faced with a devastating decision, but having been through the proper legal process, the decision for his wife’s care belongs to him and to God.” But Republican leadership thought the decision belonged to the government, so Kirk jetted back to Washington to vote for federal intervention in this family decision — Republicans voted 156-5 in favor, and Kirk went along (most Democrats who voted voted against).

• Kirk voted to elect a man to Republican leadership who has accused Israel of apartheid. The week after Kirk was re-elected in 2006, he voted to elect Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) to the post of Republican Policy Committee Chairman.  Issa had previously publicly accused Israel of apartheid and called for the U.N. to redraw Israel’s borders. Issa lost because Kirk’s Republican colleagues voted for Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI) by a 2-1 margin. Ironically, when Kirk did not follow the Republican majority, Kirk voted the wrong way. Yet another example of Kirk following leaders who do not support our agenda.

• Kirk voted in favor of the federal government acquiring a 29-foot tall cross on Mt. Soledad, near San Diego, after a federal judge ruled that the cross could not stand in the municipal park because it violated a state constitutional prohibition on the governmental endorsement of any one religion.

• Kirk voted in favor of a House resolution acknowledging and supporting the “role played by Christianity in the founding of the United States.”  As Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY) said at the time, “Congress has better things to do than to infringe upon the separation of church and state.”

• Kirk voted against Obama’s Stimulus Plan (Republicans voted NO 177-0). United Jewish Communities supported the Stimulus Plan because it advanced their agenda. Apparently, Kirk’s agenda is different.
• Kirk voted for Rep. John Boehner (R-OH), one of the most extreme anti-choice, anti-environment, pro-gun members of Congress, for Speaker of the House. Republicans voted for Boehner 174-0. Boehner lost. Kirk says he supports stem cell research and he claims to be pro-choice, yet he supports a party and leaders whose agenda is on the wrong side of these issues. Boehner has received zero ratings from NARAL Pro-Choice America, Planned Parenthood, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the League of Conservation Voters. The National Education Association gave Boehner an F. The National Right to Life Committee gave Boehner a rating of 100, the Gun Owners of America gave Boehner a rating of 100, and the National Rifle Association gave Boehner a rating of A.  That’s the man who sets the Republican agenda and who Mark Kirk would have running the House of Representatives.

• Kirk voted against the Paycheck Fairness Act. Republicans voted against another equal pay for women bill 160-10. But Democrats voted 246-3 favor, so it passed the House.
• Kirk voted against bringing the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009 (SCHIP) to the floor. Republicans voted against 175-0. Had Kirk and the Republicans prevailed, the bill would have been killed. But wait: Democrats voted 244-3 in favor of bringing it to a vote, and when it came to the floor, Kirk flip-flopped and voted in favor of the same bill he had just voted to kill. He can thus truthfully tell opponents of the program that he tried to stop it, and he can tell supporters of the program that he voted for it.

• Kirk told the Chinese not to believe US budget numbers. Marketwatch.com Wall Street columnist David Weidner called Kirk’s statement “a colossally stupid thing to say.”

• Kirk’s record on the environment is mixed. In the 2007-08 session of Congress, Kirk received a League of Conservation Voters score of 82%. But in 2005 his score was only 39%, and he’s received scores in between in other years. He lost the endorsement of both the League of Conservation Voters and the Sierra Club in 2006. But his scores tend to improve when he senses a tough re-election campaign.

• Kirk’s office threatened to withhold funding from Tel Aviv University. In retaliation for a supporter of Tel Aviv University backing Kirk’s opponent in 2006, a Kirk staffer paid at taxpayer expense threatened Tel Aviv University financially. Kirk took no action other than to “reprimand” the staffer.

•Kirk favors repeal of the estate tax. As Al Gore points out in his book The Assault on Reason, under the Republican agenda, “the need to eliminate inheritance taxes on the wealthiest 1/100 of 1 percent of families in America (the only taxpayers who are still subject to it) has been treated as a much more important priority than the need to provide at least minimal access to health care for tens of millions of families who currently have no access to health care coverage at all.” (Emphasis in the original.)

• Kirk voted with the Republican party on more than 8 out of every 10 votes in Congress. In prior sessions of Congress, he voted with the Republicans more than 9 out of every 10 votes. On the 25 closest votes (decided by seven votes or less) in the last session of Congress, when his vote really mattered, he voted with the Republicans 24 out of 25 times.  Party labels matter. Party affiliation is an excellent predictor of how a member will vote on any given issue, and parties set the legislative agenda.

This is not a “moderate” voting record, at least not when it comes to the key votes — it’s mostly a right-wing Republican voting record that contrasts with Kirk’s mostly moderate rhetoric.

If you consider this a good voting record, you’re not alone — President George W. Bush probably would agree with you, and many Republican members of Congress would too.

If you are nostalgic for Bush and Cheney, then Kirk is your candidate.

Comments

There are no comments for this entry