Defeat Mark Kirk

Conservatives in Illinois's 10th District deserve better!

Pretty much sums it up!

This picture was taken on July 4th at the Tea Party in Palentine.  Read all about it at the Experimentum Crucis blog.  There’s several pictures of the group, estimated to be around 150.

Inside “Captain” Kirk’s Mind

Let’s put Mark Kirk’s (R-IL?) vote for the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), also known as Cap-n-Tax in perspective, by examining why he voted for it and what his goals (in voting for it) are.

Kirk told the Daily Herald that he voted for the bill because,

“I want the U.S. to end its reliance on foreign oil, especially the fuel produced in unfriendly nations such as Iran.”

If that’s his goal, don’t you think trying to pass such legislation would be a good idea?  This bill will do nothing to wean us off foreign oil.  In fact, the excessive taxes placed on domestic produced oil and gasoline will likely drive American companies to foreign lands to produce their product, then import it back to the USA.  Kirk’s number one reason is a failure!

He also went on to “explain” that the energy and building code regulations included in Cap-n-Tax “wouldn’t be that significant” because they are less stringent than current ones in Illinois.

Now this is a bald-face lie, unless current codes in Illinois require new construction to install “appropriate electrical outlets with the facility and capacity to recharge a standard electric passenger vehicle” or requires “energy audits”.

But let’s ignore this and focus just on what Kirk says:  Illinois already has more stringent building codes than those in the ACES bill that he voted for.  If this is true, then why did he vote for it, since it will not make any real change?  In other words, by Kirk’s own statement, this bill will not change anything in Illinois!  If anything, he could’ve cited this as  reason enough to vote against it.

I wish Kirk would have spent more time offering alternatives to this Cap-n-Tax bill as he says he’s doing for Obama’s healthcare legislation.  Why didn’t he fight for amendments that opened up domestic drilling, which would have an immediate impact on reducing our dependance on foreign oil?

The thing that Moderates  and Liberals alike don’t understand is that Government cannot do anything better and more efficiently than the private sector.  But what they always want is Government to “fix” our problems.  Instead, Government should get out of the way and let the People fix it.  If you don’t believe that Government is the problem, not the solution, name one thing (besides National Defense) that Government does better and more efficiently than the private sector.

Here’s some things to consider:

Would you rather use:

U.S. Post Office or FEDEX
Public School or Private School
Driver’s License Bureau or a Private Alternative
VA Medical Centers or a Private Hospital

And don’t forget, every Big Government program NEVER comes in on budget.  They always cost more and they usually hemorrhage money.  Just look at Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, and the Post Office.

I wonder if Kirk’s health care overhaul proposal is so good, he’ll dump his special Congressman plan and join the Public Option?

I think we all know the answer to that one.

Kirk’s Compensation

Tom Roeser’s theory (scroll down to “The Other Kirk”) on why Mark Kirk (R-IL?) voted for the American Clean Energy and Security Act last week passes the smell test.  Here’s Roeser’s words:

[Rham Emmanuel] said that if Mark did them a good turn on Cap ‘n Trade maybe a clunker could be found to run against him in the House. Sounded good to Kirk…

If Mr. Kirk really did vote for this pile of manure without getting anything in return (as some people claim), then he’s even stupider than we thought.  Why risk the anger of your voters by supporting a bill that may not even pass the Senate? Getting next to nothing in opposition from the Democrats seems like a good deal.

But boy did he mis-under-estimate his constituents!  Roeser sums it up like this:

Mark Kirk is more likely to go down to defeat to a conservative in the primary than if he were to meet any of the clunkers Emanuel can round up.

Roeser also echos the reason this site was started:

[Conservates in the 10th district are asking] what’s the use of our placating Mark Kirk if he’s just another Dem vote anyhow? So he’s going to get a tough primary opponent.

I think I can hear the petitions to run flying off the shelves.

Mark Kirk’s Secret Weapon

Something is very troubling about Mark Kirk’s (R-IL?) statement about why he voted for the American Clean Energy and Security Act, and I’ve not heard anyone else bring it up.  It’s near the end of his statement:

I voted in favor of the legislation to address these problems, looking forward to major improvements in the Senate.

He wants the Senate to salvage the bill, making “major improvements” to it.  Not just regular improvements, but major ones.  What’s the difference between “surgery” and “Major surgery” anyway?

This strikes me as just a foolish thing to do, much less admit it.  It’s one thing to vote against a bill, and then say “Rewrite it, improve it, and then we’ll have another look-see,” like Bill Foster (D-IL) did.  But isn’t it irresponsible to vote for legislation and then “hope” the magical Senate fairies will sprinkle pixie dust on it and make it all better?

What happens when this abomination actually passes the Senate with Olympia Snow and Stuart Smalley casting votes 59 & 60?  Apperantly the Tooth Fairy doesn’t visit the Senate chambers.

What’s really devious about Mr. Kirk’s statement, though, is that it gives him cover to once again, ride the fence on the legislation.  He can claim that the bill isn’t perfect, but we have to do something, and he was counting on the Senate to clean it up.

The last time a Republican did something like that, it nullified a portion of the 1st Amendment.  George W. Bush signed Campaign Finance Reform that restricted Free Speech 30 days before a primary and 60 days before a general election.  Many theorized that Bush didn’t want the stigma of vetoing “Campaign Finance Reform” and that he believed the Supreme Court would find the act unconstitutional.  That didn’t happen and now we’re stuck with it.  Thanks a bunch Bush!

Of course when comparing Mr. Kirk and Campaign Finance Reform it fits like a glove, when you consider who championed it.  That’s right, it was known as “McCain/Fiengold” before passage.  The unintended consequences of dealing with Moderates!

One footnote:  Bill Foster said:

It is my hope that the Senate will make significant improvements to this legislation.

The big difference, of course, is that Foster had the brains to vote against ACES.  And he wants “significant improvements” instead of “major improvements”.

But since he’s a “scientist” he doesn’t believe in fairies.

With friends like these…

Came across this bog post about Mark Kirk (R-IL?) entitled “Don’t Panic! Mark Kirk Has Not Left The GOP Reservation”. Any conservative that knows anything about Mr. Kirk knows that he never (really) was on the GOP reservation! Ever! Take some big issues within the GOP:

1) Abortion – He votes with the Dems

2) Second Amendment – He votes with the Dems

3) Homeland Security – Voted with Dems against the surge

The problem with Moderates is that they wait to see which direction the parade is going, then jump in line. Mr. Kirk was never on the “GOP Reservation” and only someone in deep denial could think he’s not an Indian-Giver (I couldn’t resist!).

Also in this article was the assurance that Mr. Kirk didn’t get anything for his vote for the American Clean Energy and Security Act, and that Kirk actually refused to take a call from President Obama on Friday, not once, but twice! The author sums it up like this:

So, for anyone who was worried that Kirk had been bought by the Dems, that’s not the case.

This misses the point by wide margin though! Mr. Kirk screwed the GOP by allowing two Illinois Congressmen to vote against ACES, realizing that their votes weren’t needed in order for passage.

To prove this point, is anyone picketing or making websites demanding that Jerry Costello (District 12) and Bill Foster (District 14) be defeated?

No, because they actually are using this as a resume enhancement, to show that they aren’t a far-left wacko.

Like Mark Kirk.

Protest Kirk this July 4th

Found this at the Lake County Tea Party site:

Mark Kirk (R-IL?) will be in two parades on July 4th.  One in Glenview at 11:30 am, and the other in Northbrook at 2:30 pm.  This would be a great opportunity to let him know what you think of his vote for the American Clean Energy and Security Act!

Photo courtesy of Kate Deioma.

Man-Made Global Warming = Man-Made Hype

In a previous post, we showed how two Illinois Democrats voted against the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), while there was only one Republican in the entire state of Illinois, Congressman Mark Kirk, who voted for it.

But who’s the bigger hypocrite?  The Dems that voted against the bill, even though they believe in man-made global warming, or Mr. Kirk (R-IL?) who voted for the bill, but doesn’t come right out and say he’s a “believer”?

Consider this:

Both of these Democrats believe in man-made global warming (Foster claims to be a “scientist”), but they voted against “the cure”, curbing greenhouse gasses, specifically CO2, because of economic reasons.  If they truly believed that the Earth was being destroyed by us, shouldn’t they have voted for the bill, no matter what the cost to the economy?  (Really, what are the economic implications of the end of the world?)

But what of Mr. Kirk?  He actually refers to himself in the past tense as a “skeptic”, but then regurgitates that there is a “growing scientific consensus that the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide affects average temperatures.”  He’s given himself enough wiggle-room to go either way on this.  He sums up his Yea vote like this:

I would have preferred a bill that focused more on energy independence and less on some of the complications in this bill.

ACES does nothing to help with energy independence and could even cause more dependence on foreign oil.

So who’s the biggest hypocrite?  I guess the voters will decided.

Cool interactive ACES voting map

Found this yesterday while researching Mark Kirk’s disgusting Yea-vote for the Cap and Trade bill (ACES).  This interactive map lets you examine who voted for the bill and how their district voted last November (Obama/McCain).  What stuck out to me was two of our Illinois Democrats voted against the bill, while Mr. Kirk (tool of Nancy Pelosi), voted for it.  More on this later.

Two Democrats are better than one Republican

Two Illinois Democrats, Jerry Costello (District 12) and Bill Foster (District 14) voted against the American Clean Energy and Security Act last week.  Both of these Dems make more sense than anything Mark Kirk (R-IL?) has said about his vote.

Costello said:

“I oppose H.R. 2454 because… Energy costs will skyrocket and workers will face layoffs and plant closures.”

Foster added this:

I have always believed we have a responsibility to act in a way that comes with the lowest possible cost to the economy.

These politicians were able to vote against the ACES bill because eight misguided Republicans voted for it, including our soon-to-be-ex-Congressman, Mark Kirk.

Next fall, see how Costello and Foster are able to remind their voters how they “stood up to Nancy Pelosi” and voted in the interests of their constituents.  Too bad Mr. Kirk couldn’t have followed the example of these Democrats, in this situation, instead of helping out Nancy Pelosi and President Obama.

Fish Stories with Mark Steven Kirk

Congressman Mark Steven Kirk from Illinois’ 10th Congressional District, recently voted for the Cap and Trade bill (HR 2454). For those of you who have followed his career, and his political aspirations, this is not a big story. The big story is his claim that he actually read it!

See: Fish Stories with Mark Steven Kirk

The other big story is his explanation as to why he voted for it. A minimal analysis of the situation will demonstrate that either Kirk did not read it (at least not very well) or he really does think that the voters of the 10th Congressional District in Illinois are some of the stupidest people on earth. I have long thought that this was his attitude. I am one of those voters and have sensed his condescension for me for some time.

In the video linked above there are three assertions he makes:

1. He is on page 587
2. He is reading about “alternative metrics and threshold review”
3. He has a “couple hundred” more pages to read

Problems with this are numerous, first, Page 587 of the bill he actually voted on discusses efficiency standards for newly constructed residential homes, specifically:

“…that the structure have appropriate electrical outlets with the facility and capacity to recharge a standard electric passenger vehicle, including an electric hybrid vehicle, where such vehicle would normally be parked.”

I am not going to deviate too much from the focus of this post, but I have posted more on the bill itself at my other blog whatmustbesaid for more analysis including what the heck a ’standard electric passenger vehicle’ could possibly be.

So, what we know so far is that the bill Mark Kirk was reading was paginated the same as the bill he voted on. Maybe this is no big deal, but then there is point 3, that he had a couple hundred more pages to go, but the final bill was 1428 pages long. 587 + ‘a couple hundred’ is no where near 1428.

The next aspect of this issue we should address is Kirk’s main justification for signing this bill. Consider the opening sentence from Kirk’s Blog on the Cap and Trade bill:

“For 2009, our top goal should be energy independence.  I support exploring for energy off our coasts, expanding nuclear power and building a natural gas pipeline across Canada to lower heating costs in the Midwest – an “all-of-the-above” energy strategy.”

I see three things in this that one would reasonably expect to find in the bill based on his statement (I assume he read it):

1. Support for energy exploration off our coasts (this is commonly understood to mean oil and natural gas drilling)
2. Support for more Nuclear generation facilities
3. Support for a Trans-Canadian natural gas pipeline

To my surprise, a review of the bills table of contents could not pinpoint any section supporting oil or gas exploration off our coasts. So I tried searching the document. Searches for the following:

• drill
• drilling
• exploration
• offshore
• coast

I found no references at all to the first four, and all references to coast were about coastal environmental management in the face of sea-level rise.

There is also no section that I could find supporting natural gas pipelines, Canadian or not.

Support for nuclear power was confusing at best:

Subtitle I—Nuclear and Advanced Technologies
SEC. 181. REVISIONS TO LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM AUTHORITY.
(a) DEFINITION OF CONDITIONAL COMMITMENT.—
Section 1701 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16511), as amended by section 130(a) of this Act, is amended by adding after paragraph (7) the following:

The problem with this is that Section 130(a) does not in fact amend Section 1701 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Section 129 does. I spent about an hour looking through the bill trying to find things that I thought were important to Kirk, and I noticed this discrepancy. This makes me wonder if anyone actually read this bill.

Additionally, the the text of the amendment for Section 1701:

‘‘(8) CONDITIONAL COMMITMENT.—The term ‘conditional commitment’ means a final term sheet negotiated between the Secretary and a project sponsor or sponsors, which term sheet shall be binding on both parties and become a final loan guarantee agreement if all conditions precedent established in the term sheet, which shall include the acquisition of all necessary permits and licenses, are satisfied.’’.

Anyone following the issues with increasing nuclear generation capacity in America knows that acquiring all the permits and licenses, due to lawsuits by environmental groups, is the hard part. Before any real progress can be made on nuclear energy here, the process of obtaining permits must be streamlined and protected from specious lawsuits.

In sum, I don’t see how any of Kirk’s stated priorities for energy are furthered by this bill, and therefore do not know why he supported it, unless he thought if would be good for his re-election or election to another office.

Powered by Wordpress | WP Premium theme by PSD to XHTML
Copyright 2009 Defeat Mark Kirk. All rights reserved

• Our Position