So sayeth Lynn Sweet
The assumption of the establishment of the Illinois GOP is that Kirk is a perfect candidate and they will throw their weight behind him. The problem is that they’ve been dieting for a long time and the establishment isn’t what it once was.
The start of the Illinois Republican civil war really goes back to the 1990 election for Governor. That year Jim Edgar, a moderate establishment type, was challenged by Steve Baer in the primary. Edgar won that election and the 1994 primary against the other crazy Roeser–Jack. But the conservative challenges would continue and begin to be much more successful.
In 1992, five conservative GOP Senators were elected who challenged the moderate leadership: Peter Fitzgerald, Chris Lauzen, Patrick O’Malley, Steve Rauchenberger, and Dave Syverson. After 1994, we see the top of the ticket–either US Senate or Governor going to pro-life establishment types or conservative challengers have prevailed with the lone exception of Topinka who had multiple conservative opponents.
In 1996, conservative State Representative Al Salvi defeated moderate Lieutenant Governor Bob Kustra for the US Senate nomination and in 1998 Peter Fitzgerald won the primary against moderate Comptroller Loleta Didrickson. Even when conservatives haven’t won primaries, they have hobbled the more moderate establishment candidates. Patrick O’Malley ran a scorched earth campaign against then Attorney General Jim Ryan in 2002 and Jim Oberweis ran a harsh campaign against Judy Baar Topinka in 2006, though the conservative vote was split between a few candidates. The 2004 US Senate campaign was won by Jack Ryan who was conservative, but straddled the line with the establishment. The US Senate campaigns in 2002 and 2008 were largely non-factors though the ultimate nominees were slightly more moderate.
Kirk is seen as a magic cure to the ills of the Illinois GOP that has been shut out of statewide office since 2006, has a Senate minority against a veto-proof Senate Democratic majority, and a Republican minority in the House in which the Dems are only a few seats from a veto proof majority. And on the surface he probably is their best bet in a general election. While one can (and I do) argue that he is far less indepedendent than he lets on, on four critical issues he sets himself apart from the national Republican Party (guns, gays, abortion, and the environment).
However, early signs point to social conservatives in the party to not be willing to go along with a Kirk candidacy and an insurgent conservative candidate seems likely to appear. Yesterday I pointed to Tom Roeser explicitly rejecting Kirk and saying social conservatives will not work for him. While Roeser is a crank, he’s also an influential voice in social conservative circles having his own radio show weekly on WGN 890.
If Kirk decides and gets the party’s all-but-official nod, the party can kiss goodbye any hope that social conservatives will support Kirk. I divide Republican moderates as either pro-choice or pro-abort. Kirk has made no bones about the fact that he is a hard-left pro-abort. He supports not only abortion on demand but has spoken against the Born Alive bill which guarantees nutrition, comfort and medical care to babies born alive from botched abortions…which puts him squarely in Barack Obama’s pro-abortion camp. He supports partial birth abortion, public funding for abortion, total ban on parental consent and use of embryonic stem cells for experimentation. In short, where Jim Edgar could have been called pro-choice (he opposed partial birth abortion), Kirk is hard-line all the way.
It might be ameliorated if Kirk were to run for the U. S. Senate but as governor and leader of the party in Illinois, he would assuredly shut down any remaining pro-life dissent and would be a variant of Big Jimbo Thompson on the issue.
Roeser isn’t alone. The Illinois Family Institute ran a column the other day saying:
Congressman Mark Kirk’s Feverish Defense of Thought Crimes Legislation
When Kirk refers to “a crime of a particular nature,” he tries to gloss over or obfuscate the deeply troubling “thought” part of the hate crimes legislation. When he uses the word “crime” he is drawing particular attention to the legitimate part: a criminal
action — which, of course, is already illegal. When, however, he uses the evasive, obfuscatory phrase “of a particular nature,” he’s referring to the illegitimate part of the legislation: the thoughts or feelings of the perpetrator. Kirk cleverly avoids the troubling dimensions of this legislation through the manipulation of his rhetoric.
Moreover, Kirk completely ignores the fact that there are numerous incidences in this country and Canada in which people have been charged and convicted, either by courts, “human rights commissions,” or “human rights tribunals” of violating hate crimes policies or laws for merely expressing publicly the conviction that homosexual acts are profoundly immoral. Everyone who is familiar with this legislation knows that the groups most ardently working for its passage are organizations dedicated to undermining conservative beliefs on the nature and morality of homosexuality. This is a cause near and dear to Mark Kirk’s heart as evidenced by his 75 percent approval rating by the “largest national gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization,” the Human Rights Campaign.
The Illinois Family Institute is largely funded by Jack Roeser and his allies, the other conservative Roeser (no relation) in Illinois who has long bankrolled conservative challengers against the more moderate establishment. Few things go out of it without his approval.
Rep. Kirk is considering a run for Illinois Governor or U.S. Senate in 2010. This attempt to ban free speech may – and should – come back to haunt him.
Frankly, even more so, Rep. Kirk owes not only the parents, but the children of Illinois an apology for proposing and sponsoring such extreme left-wing, abusive legislation.
This wasn’t the first threat from Illinois Review about his future prospects. Eric Wallace went ballistic at the notion there shouldn’t be a litmus test for the US Senate nomination:
Then, quite to my surprise, this past Monday, March 23, 2009 Senator Cornyn of Texas was heard heralding the very same thing—“no litmus test”. And to whom is he speaking of to the Main Stream Media—none other than Congressman Mark Kirk. Cornyn goes on to say “we need a moderate to win in a democrat-leaning State”.
I have a few problems with this “litmus test” rhetoric. First of all, the pro-life plank is part of the National GOP platform as well as the Illinois state GOP platform. Pro-family planks are also a part of the GOP platform, at both the federal and state level. Mark Kirk does not reflect the State party or the National party platform on either of these issues.
Secondly, the fact that party leadership would suggest there be no “litmus test” from one side of the mouth; and then from the other purport a seemingly self-serving statement that only a moderate can win, is in essence a “litmus test”. In other words, according to Senator Cornyn (and others) any viable candidate from Illinois need only apply if he/she is a social-moderate. Is this not a litmus test? But of course it’s your litmus test; and without question, it’s OK.
=============
Lastly, don’t get me wrong– I respect Kirk, McKenna and Cornyn. From what I know of them they are all good people, and sincere. But I’m convinced they’re sincerely wrong about who can win in this State. And unfortunately, if they are attempting to steer the election of the next US (IL) Senate candidate from the GOP side without a primary fight- they are sorely mistaken. There are those, including this writer, who will fight for our principles and not lay them down in the name of party unity. Our Party is no better than the Democrats if we jettison principle for expediency. Why would anyone follow a party that painstakingly crafts a platform; and then ignores it in order to garner a few more votes? Like Esau we would be selling our birthright for a bowl of soup.
Let all who claim to be conservatives be put on notice. A day is coming, and is already here, when we must stand and choose a side. Will you stand on/for principles? Or will you simply go along to get along? We will never see reform until “we stand for what say we believe and actively engaging in the political process that represents us”. This is at the very heart (and purpose) of Freedom’s Journal Magazine. Finally, what I found most compelling about that meeting in Springfield was Gov. Huckabee, who although not in the room when the chairman spoke, irrefutably contradicted his opinion. Huckabee encouraged us to “stand for life and defend those who cannot defend themselves”. He challenged everyone in the room to stand on principle, because that is how we’ll win elections. I agree with Gov. Huckabee. I plan to stand on principle. How about you?
So what does this mean for Kirk? It means he’ll get a primary challenge from the right. His fundamental problem is that no establishment type has gotten 50 % of the vote in a primary since George Ryan in 1998 and he was nominally pro-life. Even when establishment types have won since 1996, other than Judy Baar Topinka, they have been pro-life: Jim Ryan, George Ryan and say Jim Durkin (and I’m not counting Durbin’s last opponent who could have lost to the wacky Andy Martin). While the Illinois GOP establishment may want to clear the field for Kirk, they have not successfully done such a thing in 20 years.
Kirk essentially is going to be a pinball switching back and forth between trying to be the moderate the Republicans need in a general election and the conservatives the party faithful will demand in the primary. The end result will be a candidate who has no identity and will not appeal to independents or social conservatives.
The Illinois GOP condition:
There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one’s own safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions.
ArchPundit