By DOUG IBENDAHL • December 27, 2010
I don’t care that Mark Kirk is gay. I really don’t. All other factors being equal - I would vote for an honest gay candidate before I would vote for a dishonest Holy Roller. No question about it.
In fact not only do I not care who or what Kirk does in his off hours – the less I know the better.
The problem with Mark Kirk is that he’s not honest. Kirk’s not honest about a lot of things. His lifestyle is just one item on a long and ever growing list.
If Kirk was an average person, that would be no big deal. Who cares if your auto mechanic or tax accountant is gay and maybe would prefer not to share that with the world? It has no bearing on the job you hire her or him to do.
But Kirk is not an average person. He was a Congressman for years and now he’s one of only 100 U.S. Senators. By definition, Kirk’s job title puts him in a position where he’s making decisions and casting votes that do have a major impact on all of us.
On Saturday, December 18th, Kirk voted to repeal the military policy known as “Don’t-Ask, Don’t-Tell” - or “DADT” for short. Kirk was one of only eight Republicans in the Senate to vote with the Democrats, delivering President Obama a huge victory. (Note, 60 votes were needed for passage – it got 65 – therefore repeal would have failed absent those Republicans.)
The Republicans back home in Illinois who squawked or expressed dismay after Kirk’s vote had no excuse to act surprised. Even just a little homework in advance would have quickly revealed what to expect.
Way back in early August, Chicago Magazine published an interview with Kirk’s ex-wife Kimberly Vertolli. There she’s quoted saying that Kirk told her privately that the next time DADT came up for a vote, he would vote for repeal.
You may also recall that’s the same interview where Vertolli was asked about the gay rumors surrounding her ex-husband. Vertolli was given the opportunity to deny Kirk was gay – and didn’t. Instead she deflected the question – using almost the identical non-answer Kirk himself has been using lately when asked about the gay rumors. That’s pretty remarkable. What straight person wouldn’t simply give a direct denial if confronted with a gay allegation?
It’s true Kirk remained cagey on the DADT issue right up until the hour the vote was taken just over a week ago. But if Republicans were deceived by Kirk it’s only because they allowed themselves to be deceived. I don’t think you’ll find a public statement by Kirk where he said he would vote against repeal in the Senate. After being caught in so many lies earlier this year – Kirk has been watching his words very carefully.
A man as practiced in dishonesty as Kirk knows how to make you believe one thing – even as he stops short of actually saying the thing you thought he said.
There was no reason not to take the ex-wife at her word. What she said in August remained the most reliable forecast on the table. Vertolli said Kirk was committed to repeal months ago – and that’s exactly what happened.
To better understand what happened – we have to go back to late May of this year. Kirk was still just a lowly U.S. Congressman then. And with gay rumors swirling around and the election just over five months away, Kirk voted “no” on DADT repeal at that time in the House.
Just a few days after that vote, on June 1, 2010 - openly-gay activist and journalist Mike Rogers “outed” Kirk. Although to be fair to Rogers – he has since said he didn’t consider it an “outing.” Rogers told an interviewer he assumed everyone back in Illinois already knew Kirk was gay.
Rogers’ assumption was probably half correct. It’s long been widely assumed in political circles both in Illinois and D.C. that Kirk was gay – but it’s far from clear that most average voters were up to speed.
In any case, most media outlets refused to run with Rogers’ story – despite his flawless track record and unblemished credibility. The hypocrisy has been stunning. The same reporters who in 2004 couldn’t get enough of crucifying Jack Ryan over unsubstantiated allegations about a sex scandal (with no sex) involving only Jack and his own wife – made essentially a group decision that credible reports about Mark Kirk’s lifestyle were going to be ignored.
Kirk himself has long displayed the same hypocrisy. As we reported back in June, Kirk was an active participant in the 2004 take-down of Jack Ryan.
That’s why I didn’t vote for Kirk this year and I never will. No, I don’t require perfection. But I can’t support a man who is a shameless hypocrite and a serial liar. But that’s just me.
The gay issue matters in Kirk’s case because he’s not honest about it. He’s basically half-way out of the closet. It’s not exactly a secret among those active in politics, but Kirk no doubt fears he could still be hurt in a Republican primary if he leveled with voters.
This raises the so-called blackmail issue. It may not be blackmail in the legal, criminal sense, but it’s just as corrosive to the public good. When Kirk casts a vote in favor of the gay agenda we can never be certain about his motives. Any public official with any big secret can be compromised in his or her duties if he fears exposure from an interest group that knows the truth. (It’s the identical issue of course when Republican State Senator Dan Rutherford – who basically votes his conservative downstate district 100% of the time – goes off the GOP reservation and votes for the gay agenda as he’s now done twice on major bills. That includes the passage of the historic civil unions law in Springfield a few weeks ago. Rutherford was the only Republican in the State Senate to vote “yes.”)
Here’s what we do know. During his years in Congress, Kirk had a near perfect record of supporting the gay agenda. The only significant exception was May of this year when he voted against repeal of DADT in the House. Gay activists were not happy and Kirk was punished by Mike Rogers and others.
It certainly looks like Kirk learned a lesson this year. The gay community plays hardball. They take this political game seriously. Gay activists have made it very clear they are prepared to punish fellow gays in politics who display what they view as blatant hypocrisy.
And frankly they have a pretty good point. Mark Kirk is gay and only partially closeted – and he gets to serve in our military. So it’s a fair question - why shouldn’t other gays have the same privilege? The military and DADT defenders pretty much gave away the store on this one. If you’re going to give Kirk a pass – you have to give everyone a pass. Otherwise it just looks like a high ranking public official is getting special treatment. That may well have been the case for years.
We’ve all seen the newspaper editorials praising Kirk for his “independence” in the wake of his repeal vote. I think that’s nonsense and just more willful blindness from a liberal press corps that’s in love with Kirk for the way he upsets the Republican base.
The evidence clearly supports the conclusion that Kirk acted as he always does – out of pure political self-interest. Kirk voted for DADT repeal because he’s a lot more afraid of the gay lobby than he is of the conservative wing of the GOP. Kirk doesn’t respect conservatives. He’s learned from experience they are easily conned and mostly unwilling to fight for what they believe – at least in Illinois. In fact it’s been barely a week since Kirk went off the GOP reservation on DADT and already most conservatives are getting ready to give Kirk a pass on his next big betrayal. Six months from now Kirk’s vote will be largely forgotten – and Kirk knows it.
Meanwhile, gay activists are moving forward with their work – and part of that includes holding accountable closeted gay Republicans they view as traitors or hypocrites on this latest DADT vote. See for example this post from Mike Rogers. Mark Kirk surely sought to avoid a similar fate.
We conservatives can say what we want about the gay lobby – but we can’t say they aren’t effective. The fact is they fight. And with most conservatives either too timid to engage or sitting around expecting God to do all the work – the gay lobby is winning on all fronts. I used to say Illinois would have gay marriage in ten years. I now think five years is a better guess.
Doug Ibendahl is a Chicago Attorney and a former General Counsel of the Illinois Republican Party.
END
TWITTER
