ICFST== IL GOP
As predicted, Cornyn’s litmus test bit didn’t go over well with the purity of essence crowd:
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.
The answer–run to the right! Median voter theorem be damned.
The Democrats have offered up a fairly good situation even in a reliably blue state like Illinois with Blagojevich, Burris, and a state budget crisis. Yet again though, the IL GOP shows why they are the Washington Generals of Illinois.
But the Democrats aren’t content to let their good fortune go without making a little good fortune on top of it and the effort by social conservatives to mandate the election of State Committeemen gets some help in the form of Lou Lang.
“I’m trying to give the Republican Party what it has insisted for the last six or eight weeks it wants: open and transparent elections,” said Rep. Lou Lang, a Skokie Democrat who pushed for the change.
On the merits, the Republicans are correct–the state shouldn’t be able to tell a private political party how to operate. However, it sure is fun watching. The funnest bit yet was Chris Lauzen:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fsbf1ClsQY[/youtube]
I’ve often had fun at Lauzen’s expense and I probably will again, but that’s not really so much the point about the above. The two sides of the ICFST dispute hate each other. Lauzen makes very clear what he is doing is to fight internal Republican corruption and just called the other side corrupt and a self-interested. Although, Lauzen does it in a very polite tone. What is funny is that either side thinks they can put together a 50% + 1 coalition with this kind if hatred.
Mark Kirk is the congressman who represents the district where I grew up. He may be the last of the so-called GOP moderates. But if he runs for the U.S. Senate can anyone explain to me why I, an Obama supporter, would even consider voting for him. What Obama projects will he support in the Senate.
Forty years ago the U.S. Senate was a body that consisted of multi-political parties. There were liberal Democrats, Southern Democrats, Northeast liberal to moderate Republicans and conservative Repubilcans. Those 4 parties were a shifting group that often made unique coalitions.
Now there are two parties who vote consistently one way or the other.
Quite frankly, even though he will not be the nominee, I would vote for Burris over Kirk. At least he will be vote for the Obama agenda and not another vote against it in its entirety.
Yeah, he is no Charles Percy type. There are those odd ducks out there who seem to think Kirk and Obama are alike–that’s the difference between Seals and Obama’s numbers. That said, in a state wide election outside of his District, he doesn’t have that magic to explain away years of lockstep GOP voting and some horrendous votes he took.