I’m going to assume (I don’t know why, except his history) that his global warming reversal was posturing so the Republicans don’t kick him out. That he doesn’t sincerely believe global warming isn’t happening.
Still, that’s enough for a weak supporter like me, who voted for him last time, to go Duckworth.
Oh, Mark…
Kirk has been all over the place . Recently he’s said he’s against the Indiana religion law., will vote for Lynch, but compared the Iran deal to Nazi appeasement
Strange, isn’t it.
At least he’s not like Durbin who once compared the US Military to Nazis.
I don’t know about his opinions on Lynch (but nearly everyone says she’s qualified) but the other two aren’t much of a surprise. Kirk is a hawk opposed to cutting any sort of deal with Iran – or Syria or Russia or whoever. On the other hand, Kirk said after his stroke that he had something of an epiphany that life was too short to spend it stopping people from getting married or having equal rights. So his statements there are consistent.
I’ll definitely vote for Duckworth over him and I have criticism enough about him but those statements don’t seem like he’s being fake or trying to stake some moderate ground before the election.
He’s onto 'em. They only want the Bomb so they can get away with annexing the Persian-majority areas of the Sudetenland.
If Kirk took a liberal position on Iran he wouldn’t even be a Democrat. Democrats that actually support letting Iran continue to enrich are a pretty rare breed in the Senate.
Which allows Iran to continue enrichment.
Not of the types that could actually result in nuclear weapons material – and there will be ongoing inspections to verify the conditions of the deal.
It’s still one hell of a concession even if that’s true. We’ve acknowledged that nations have a right to enrich uranium, NPT be damned.
Nations have the right, per the NPT, to enrich uranium for peaceful energy purposes. This is a different type of enrichment than what is required for weapons.
As your cite points out, it’s a bit of a loophole that undermines anti-proliferation efforts, not to mention the US’s official interpretation of the treaty does not recognize a right to enrichment.
It can be for the first part, but the framework requires ongoing inspections to prevent the “bad” enrichment that can result in weapons material. As to the US’s interpretation, you’ll need to provide a specific cite that they don’t recognize the right to enrich for peaceful energy purposes.
In any case, this isn’t really the thread for a long discussion. I just wanted to point out that Mark Kirk’s position on Iran doesn’t put him “all over the place” ideologically. It sits in pretty comfortably with his other moderate Republican positions on the issues.
Excellent idea to take the Iran stuff to its own thread.
Back to Duckworth vs Kirk!
Is Duckworth a big enough name in Illinois (I know she is nationally) to clear the field? If she’s in, is she pretty much definitely the nominee?
I think so. I don’t know if she’ll run unopposed but the state party apparatus will definitely be in her court and pressuring contenders to step aside gracefully. Illinois is a prime target to flip this cycle and Duckworth is considered the best bet to do it.
I’m pretty sure Duckworth won’t draw a major opponent. This is definitely a prime Democratic pick up target. Rauner is unpopular right now and who knows if there will be charges against Schock? There’s not much room for a moderate Republican and winning Chicago and the suburbs is enough for a Duckworth victory.
So, Sen. Kirk referred to Sen. Graham as a bro with no ho. The kinda of talk I’d expect from a college frat guy, not a sitting senator. It won’t be a big story, but this won’t help him with moderate swing voters.