Greg Hinz runs a uncharacteristically negative story on Kirk for Kirk’s flip flop on climate change legislation. Kirk is a bit of a golden boy in the press even for very good political reporters like Hinz because he seems to be uniquely talented as a politicians. It certainly helps that he is that centrist split the difference kind of guy that editorial boards and commentators tend to gravitate to, but ultimately the biggest thing about Kirk is that he seems to be a teflon candidate with incredible talent and admiration for the game does translate into admiration of the guy. That’s a fairly natural point that many press critics miss when discussing press bias.
Specifically — a video of Mr. Kirk’s speech is posted on YouTube — a congressman known for his pro-environmental stances said he voted the way he did on this issue
because, “It was in the narrow interests of my congressional district.
“But,” he quickly added as some in the Republican crowd booed, “as your (senator), representing the entire state of Illinois, I would vote ‘no’ against the bill coming up, and that’s because we are manufacturing, agriculture and coal state.”
What’s wrong with the statement? Answer: So many things, I almost don’t know where to begin.
For starters, it’s at odds with the explanation Mr. Kirk gave earlier this year. Asked then why he was one of only three House Republicans to back Mr. Obama’s proposal, Mr. Kirk cited “national security” considerations, arguing that a modest carbon tax would spur development of domestic energy sources and reduce dependence on oil controlled by Saudi sheiks and Venezuelan dictators.
So, are 10th District residents the only Illinoisans who care about national security?
At some point, consistency matters and generally statewide big name races are generally that point. Kirk isn’t faced with a serious candidate during the primary right now, but petitioning is open until November 2nd. I’m not convinced someone might not show up, but that’s exactly what Kirk is worried about right now and he’s tacking to his right to avoid that. His goal is to not make too many promises to his base that he can’t safely tack to the center for the general election. The other possibility is that the Club for Growth could come in for this opponent Patrick Hughes making it a Spector versus Toomey kind of race.
But right now the narrative that could well develop and Democrats are certainly happy to help with is that Kirk will say anything and has no core beliefs. It works on two levels, it hits moderate voters and it works against him with his base which is already skeptical.
One fascinating stat from Rich’s post yesterday on Hughes’ poll is this:
58% oppose same sex marriage with 28% in favor.
.
There was some discussion that Giannoulias and Hoffman might be making a mistake on gay marriage by endorsing it, but I think this tells the story pretty well why it won’t matter. Only 58 % of Illinois GOP primary voters are against gay marriage–that’s pretty stunning. While some Democratic constituencies are against gay marriage such as black and latino voters, they don’t vote primarily on the issue and the GOP’s tack to the racist fringe isn’t going to change that anytime soon. It’s a safe position for a Democratic politicians statewide. Certainly in a very close election, such positions can cost someone an election, but that’s true of almost any position.