Yesterday, we noted that Republican Senate candidate Mark Kirk's latest explanation of his cap-and-trade position doesn't really jibe with what he told local media figures about the issue earlier this summer. Now he says that he supported the House bill because it represented the narrow interests of his 10th District constituency, but in a July radio appearance he said he was rethinking his position because those same IL-10 constituents were purportedly outraged at his initial vote.
In a new blog post, Crain's Greg Hinz points to an earlier Kirk explanation that further undermines his latest account of why he voted in favor of the House bill:
Asked [by the Daily Herald] 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?
Hinz then goes on to make this broader point:
[Bl]laming his district for his vote raises the obvious question of which other of his moderate views the gentleman from Highland Park is preparing to jettison. Guns, abortion and gay rights, tax policy, pharmaceutical aid, whatever? Who knows what the man now really believes.
Read Hinz's full post here.
Comments
Ellen Beth Gill (not verified) on Wed, 09/16/2009 - 13:59
What we have a lot of in the IL-10 are environmentalists. I would guess we have a higher than average Sierra Club membership in our area. Kirk always treasured his endorsements from environmental groups, as his endorsement from Planned Parenthood. He'd vote against them in non-eleciton years and go back when it was an election year. My educated guess is that he was leaning toward running for the house again when he voted for cap and trade. So, in a way when he blamed his vote on our district, he was correct. However, we never told him to be lying and pandering. We'd actually like him to stand for something other than himself. It would be a welcome change.
Post new comment
Progress Illinois' intention is to foster community and to maintain a comfortable and constructive blogging environment. While we encourage and appreciates different points of view, we do not consider it our duty to give a voice to anybody with an opinion.
Discussion on this site is moderated. All comments submitted will be automatically held for review by the editors before posting. Your comment will not appear on the site until it has been approved.
We will not publish comments that we consider:
Please leave a name or nickname when commenting, as it makes it easier for others to respond directly.