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.