Given Scott Brown’s recent victory, I have felt compelled to revisit the Republican primary for Burris’ U.S. Senate seat.  I had initially written off the primaries as an automatic lock for a Mark Kirk-Alexi Giannoulias battle.  Would I prefer to have Kirk over Giannoulias?  Absolutely.  Afterall, Alexi is a stonewalling, bank-failing, double-talking product of the Chicago political machine.  Kirk is left-of-center instead of being utterly liberal.  The truth of the matter is that this is just another case of voting for the lesser of two evils.  Just because Mark is better than Alexi for our country and our State does not mean he is good… for anything.  Scott Brown’s victory has reminded me that I don’t always have to play the political game where you vote for who you think is electable instead of voting for who you think is best for the job.

Mark Kirk is the flavor of Republican that Chicago tolerates, but Chicago only tolerates RINOs (Republican In Name Only).  Important under normal game circumstances is the perception that Mark Kirk can beat Alexi Giannoulias.  (That appeals to me.)  In the grand scheme of things, neither point means much.  The point that matters is that if the best candidate could pull off a victory in the supremely blue State of Massachusetts, then the same thing can happen in Illinois.  I guess it is unfortunate for Mark and Alexi that neither of them is the best candidate.  I have hope that Patrick Hughes can overcome seemingly insurmountable odds and win.

The most important thing that you must know when you vote is that Mark Kirk is more of a small “d” than a big “R”.  Recently he was quoted as saying, “I am a social moderate, fiscal conservative…looking for the support of all Republicans, independents and some Democrats.”  The truth of the matter is that he is a social liberal, fiscal moderate.  He was one of eight Republicans to vote for the Cap-and-Trade legislation in the House.  Cap-and-Trade equals taxation like we haven’t seen for over half a century.  Now that he knows that, he says he wouldn’t support it as a Senator.  (Right…)  He also voted in support of raising the Federal minimum wage.  While noble sounding, this had the effect of increasing the price we all pay for goods and services created or offered in part by lower-income earners.  Businesses that had offered $7.25 to attract better base-level employees suddenly found themselves having to bump their pay scale up in order to maintain the appeal.  If their costs increase, then our costs increase.  Both moves are egregiously counterproductive to creating jobs and growing the economy.  Of course, let’s not forget that Mark Kirk voted against the successful military surge in Iraq and for embryonic stem cell research.  To those who care, he is also against the traditional definition of marriage, and he is a proponent of abortion (regardless of what he claims).  Click here for his record. His military career aside, he has basically worked in government since 1984, which does not endear him to me.  Click here for a brief bio.

Patrick Hughes?  He’s the anti-Kirk.  Pat Hughes is the opposite on every point that I listed above for Marky Mark.  While Mark Kirk has been complicit in growing the size of our Federal government since 2001, Mr. Hughes believes in limited government.  While Kirk believed in Cap-and-Trade and increased minimum wages, Hughes believes in lower taxes and less government interference/regulation.  While Kirk believes in evolving society (which has a price tag), Hughes believes in the traditional.  While Kirk has been in politics since 1984, Hughes has never held a political office before.  (He’s been busy being successful in the private sector.)  Click here for more.

The only commonality I see with them is that they graduated with law degrees and practiced for awhile.  (I’ll forgive that this time.)  I am going to vote for Patrick Hughes for the U.S. Senate.  I want real change in Illinois and Washington, D.C.