At first, I was frustrated with Mark Kirk. His exaggerations and embellishments turned what should have been an easy win into a close contest. But his opponent has been just as bad, if not worse. Now, I have come to realize two things.
First, while Mark Kirk should not have done what he did, we are not talking about taking bribes or about saying one thing before the election even though you know you are going to do something different afterward, which is what normally happens in Illinois. We are talking about puffing up a résumé.
Second, we are down to two candidates. We can send a senator to Washington who will be an automatic vote for whatever the Democratic leadership wants. Or we can send somebody to the Senate who will actually think for himself.
If you think big government is always the solution to our problems, if you think more and more government spending is the way to get the economy going, then you should vote for Mark Kirk’s opponent, because he will support the Democratic line every time. But if you think government doesn’t know everything, if you think letting people spend their own money might help the economy, and if you want somebody who will carefully consider each issue on its own merits, Mark Kirk is your candidate.
If you have listened to Mark Kirk, you can tell he is somebody who really knows about the problems we face, both here and in the world. And he has good ideas on what we should do about them.
No politician, no person, is perfect. But there are differences. There are better candidates. And in Illinois, for Senate, that’s Mark Kirk.
Patrick J. Allen