mark kirk is worried.  he’s not supposed to be in a race this november.  he’s wrapped up the last two elections with spectacular victories, and one hears that he’s made a deal with rahm emanuel so that his current opponent won’t get dccc support (this is gossip).

yet mark kirk acts worried!

you can understand why.  there are numerous indicators out there that suggest that kirk is in trouble.  many of these are inter-related.  kirk’s biggest problem is that this upcoming election will be, for many voters, about george bush.  as stuart rothenberg puts it, “<a href=”http://rothenbergpoliticalreport.blogspot.com/”>what is developing is a classic political wave of voter dissatisfaction about the direction of the nation and the performance of the president. Congressional candidates from the president’s party are about to bear the brunt of voter dissatisfaction, because President Bush isn’t on the ballot. Republican incumbents are in trouble not because they are incumbents, but because they are Republicans.</a>”

of course, mark kirk has always hid from the fact that he’s a republican, and voters have let him get away with it.  but this time could be different. voters won’t forgive george bush for his reckless actions, and mark kirk is the only person they can take it out on.  as bloomberg points out, “<a href=”http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=anXdN2hm7YHY&refer=us”>Thirty-six percent of those polled said the congressional elections on Nov. 7 will be an opportunity cast a symbolic vote against the president, up from 15 percent before the last mid- term election in 2002, according to the survey by the Washington-base Pew Center</a>.” no wonder kirk looked so scared at the buffalo grove parade!

there’s another reality that haunts kirk: illinois is turning a darker shade of blue.  “<a href=”http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-0609130173sep13,1,7327469,print.story?coll=chi-politics-topheadlines”>The percentage of Illinois voters who call themselves Democrats is at its highest pre-election level in more than a decade, posing a problem for Republicans trying to win the governor’s mansion and key congressional seats, a Tribune/WGN-TV poll shows</a>.”

admittedly, “In the collar counties, 31 percent of voters aligned themselves with Republicans while 29 percent identified with Democrats.”  but the problem here is that there are not enough republicans for kirk to win based on his record of loyalty to the republican party and president bush’s positions.  kirk either needs to win a majority of independent voters or suppress the vote.  he’s won the former in the past.  that may not help him in november.

kirk’s biggest problem is keeping voters from viewing seals as a winner.  his tactic in the last two races was to basically dismiss his challengers.  his apologists have tried that again, this time.  but with obama’s support (and the inevitable commercials making that clear), kirk has a problem.  obama’s 2-0, with one victory against the illinois machine.  kirk’s may be his next scalp!

this week, mark kirk will again show his true colors. his devotion to the extreme right-wing position of president bush, redefining the geneva conventions against the advice of his military advisors (the ones in uniform), will expose his connection to the conservativism, while parading around the 10th district as a porter moderate.

this week, mark kirk will vote to support president bush’s attempt to redefine the geneva conventions more to his liking — but against every thought of common sense known to man (and woman).

the dispute between the moderates and the extremists is over <a href=”http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/17/washington/17detain.html?pagewanted=print”>common article 3 of the geneva conventions</a>, which prohibits inhumane treatment of combatants seized in wartime. the problem is that bush has declared this a war, the supreme court has ruled against bush’s extremist positions, and the republican moderates (colin powell, john mccain, john warner and lindsey graham) lead the charge against bush’s extreme position on detainee policy.

mark kirk stands with the extremists, and against the moderates in his party.

the problem is that this is not about getting republicans elected. this is about protecting americans in uniform and what could happen to them if they are captured by the enemy — as happened to john mccain. if america reinterprets the geneva conventions to fit its ideological preferences, there is nothing to prevent our enemies from doing the same, eliminating protections for our troops seized in future confrontations. senior judge advocates general have already publicly disputed numerous aspects of the administration’s position, but especially any reinterpreting of the geneva conventions. the geneva accords have long been the cornerstone of international law, and america has been the leading defender of the conventions — until bush and kirk were elected.

kirk’s blind loyalty to bush, and his utter disregard for our american troops, has lead to his voting with bush — and against the mainstream political opinion in the country. moreover, this misguided loyalty sets back our efforts in the global war on terrorism. as senators mccain, warner and graham point out, the bush position signals to the world that america has abandoned its commitment to human rights and justice in the world.

kirk’s extreme position sets him apart from the real veterans of the uniformed services in congress, who argue that the president’s proposal guts the geneva conventions, sending a stark signal to the rest of the world and leaving our military without adequate protection against torture and mistreatment. it sets him apart from colin powell and numerous retired military officers who wrote letters supporting the moderate’s position. and it sets him apart from the political mainstream and centrists in this country. mark kirk is no moderate — he’s one of bush’s lackeys in the house. the american military is the real loser here…

yesterday, john mccain, lindsey graham, john warner and susan collins demonstrated their independence from george bush’s immoral (according to colin powell) policies on the geneva conventions and u.s. detainee policy. if someone is serious about the war of terrorism (and we all know that mark kirk would rather shutting down internet websites), then how we treat our prisoners is central to the message we are sending to the world.

mark kirk, of couse, stands with george bush. but “the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism,” colin powell said. george bush is wrong. mark kirk is wrong. this is not about terror suspects or detainees, but what will have to our men and women in uniform if they are captured. the military (the real military, not the rumsfeld sychophants) wants to make sure that our captured soldiers are treated in accordance with the geneva conventions, and they know that in order to assure that, we must treat those we capture the same way.

mark kirk stands against the military and our service members by supporting the misguided policies of the president. independent? not a chance. mark kirk has never been independent of this white house, and there’s no reason to expect him to be now. his efforts are aimed at strengthening the white house’s position, even when it’s wrong.

in this case, morally wrong. mark kirk, just say no to torture, and yes to the geneva conventions. not all of our soldiers get to “fight” a war from behind a pentagon desk. they are the ones who need the protections of the geneva conventions. real soldiers know that. real soldiers are independent of the white house…