Mark Kirk (R) vs. Dan Seals (D): a Jewish dilemma [UPDATED 11/5/08]

UPDATE 2008:

I wrote the post below two years ago. It's my most-read post (which ain't saying much).

My feeling still is that Mark Kirk is an outstanding Congressman, but I also believe that government functions better when there's a more even division between parties in the House and Senate. The next two years should be very interesting, and they won't be easy, for Kirk or anyone else.

Kirk appears to have beaten Dan Seals again this year, retaining his seat in Illinois' 10th Congressional District.

--T.A.

*

It's election season, so when it snowed yesterday, I briefly imagined it was all the yard signs, leaflets and printed e-mails that have been flying about the race for the House seat in the 10th District in Illinois, between the incumbent, Mark Kirk, a Republican, and Dan Seals, his challenger, a young Democrat running his first race for elected office.

This race has surfaced the tension between the Liberal and Conservative aspects of the Jewish community here on Chicago's North Shore, and in the life of a Jewish voter in the US in these strange and troubled times. The Liberal contingent wants the Democrats to take back control of the House. Period. The Conservative contingent notes that Kirk is an unabashed friend of Israel, but does not toe the Republican party line on issues like stem cell research, gay marriage or abortion.

Conservatives further hint darkly that Seals, an African American, would become part of a Congressional Black Caucus that is at best ambivalent on its stand toward Israel, and the US relationship with same.

Here are some excerpts from e-mails I've received.

Pro Seals:

"According to the non-partisan Congressional Quarterly, [Mark Kirk] votes with his party over 90% of the time. He voted for the Terry Schiavo Emergency Relief Act. Kirk voted to shield gun manufacturers and distributors from lawsuits brought by individuals harmed by gun industry negligence (HR 1036, 04/09/2003). On the environment, Kirk received a rating of only 39% from the League of Conservation Voters (compared to 95% for Barack Obama and Dick Durbin). That’s probably why the Sierra Club recently took the almost unprecedented step of withdrawing their endorsement of Kirk (check their web site—they list all the federal candidates they’ve endorsed, and Kirk’s name is no longer there). In addition, Kirk failed to extend the assault weapons ban, allowing it to expire on Sept. 13, 2004If you’re OK with all that, then Kirk is your man.

My point is that if you’re not OK with that and if you are pro-Israel, you don’t have to compromise. You have a choice. Dan Seals is a strong pro-Israel Democrat. He has a better background on Israel than John Porter did at this point in his career. Seals attended JCC summer camps and worked for Senator Joe Lieberman. He emphasizes the strong historic ties between Jews and African-Americans. His position on the conflict with Hizballah, written during the conflict, is one of the best I’ve read . Mark Kirk is great on Israel. Anyone with a modicum of political savvy who represents this district will be great on Israel, and fortunately, Dan Seals already is. I voted for Kirk last time because his Democratic opponent, Lee Goodman, was not, in my view, strong on Israel. That’s how important Israel is to me. But this time around, I have no doubt that Seals will be a strong, forceful advocate for Israel, and he also is great on the other issues I care about."

Pro Kirk:

" When it comes to Israel, he not only votes for Israel, but has initiated and sponsored legislation and worked hard for a strong America-Israel relationship because he believes in this special relationship. Putting partisan politics aside, in these dangerous times, Israel and its security must be number one on our community's list of priorities ... It would be a shame if some in our community put partisan politics before the security of our brothers and sisters in Israel (emphasis is the author's).

In a recent Los Angeles Times poll Democrats favored neutrality towards Israel and its enemies over alignment with Israel by a margin of 54 percent to 39 percent. The Republicans favored alignment with Israel over neutrality by 64 percent to 29 percent.

When the Palestinian Anti-terrorism Act went before Congress it was passed with only 46 members abstaining or voting no. Of the 46, 40 were democrats, many of whom were members of the influential Congressional Black Caucus.

If the Democrats were to win the House, John Conyers, as the ranking Democrat would become chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. Conyers held a hearing on the potential impeachment of the President that turned into a festival of anti-Semitism. Conyer's lead witness, Ray McGovern declared the U.S. went to war for oil, Israel and military bases coveted by necons so the U.S. and Israel could dominate that part of the world. He went on to say that Israel should not be considered an ally of the U.S. and that George Bush was doing the bidding of Ariel Sharon.

The most senior Democrat from Michigan, John Dingell, cheered McGovern at that hearing. He later declared himself ambivalent as to which side he wanted to win the war between Hizballah and Israel. Dingel said "I don't take sides for or against Hizbollah or for or against Israel." In a Democrat controlled House, Dingell would chair the powerful Energy and Commerce Committee. His position of non-committment to Israel would be a big change from current U.S. policy.

If the Democrats win the House, David Obey will become chair of the vitally-important Appropriations Committee that drafts legislation authorizing the spending of the U.S. government. Obey has already stated his desire to cut aid to Israel.

If the Democrats win the House, Charlie Rangel will become chair of the legendary House Ways and Means Committee. Rangel has stated, "The Iraq war was the biggest fraud ever committed on the people of this country, just as bad as 6 million Jews being killed." Rangel also has a history of opposing positions taken by the Anti-Defimation League.

If the Democrats win the House, Neil Abercrombie will become chairman of the Tactical Air and Land Force Subcommittee of the Armed Services. Abercrombie is on record opposing U.S. purchases of Israeli munitions, stating, "By no means, under any circumstances should a round from Israel be utilized." Abercrombie also took pride in being the sole "No" in a Resolutions that stated that America should never give foreign aid to a Palestinian government calling for Israel's destruction.

By the way, these would-be future committee chairmen, Dingell, Obie and Abercrombie all voted "No" on the Palestinian Anti-terrorism Act.

One more reason Israel supporters should fear a House take-over by the Democrats is that Nancy Pelosi will become Speaker of the House. Pelosi was one of the few members of the House who blatantly refused to support the recent House Resolution expressing support for Israel during the recent war.

It goes on like this.

Kirk's voting record is pretty centrist. I would have a hard time even considering voting for an incumbent Republican under any other circumstances, but I have not been and never will be a straight party-line voter -- not unless one party is clearly more visionary, more innovative and less corrupt than another. That clearly isn't the case right now.

The part I have a hard time with is with making Israel one's first voting priority and most critical measurement of a candidate's stature. It's a high priority, sure: Israel has a right to exist, it is an important ally not just in foreign policy but in technology, and it needs all the help it can get.

But we're in deep doo-doo right here at home. Our leadership has undermined our civil liberties. They've made it progressively harder for lower- and middle-income Americans to find jobs and decent housing, to educate their kids and to fund their own retirement and health care. They've also isolated us globally and poured billions of dollars into a failed coup in Iraq. Those are my priorities now; if Israel were my number one priority, I'd make aliyah and vote there, put my kids in the Army there, take the daily risks that Israelis take, just riding the buses and walking the pedestrian malls.

My biggest beef with Kirk is that he voted no on an additional $70 million in funding for Section 8 vouchers.

My biggest beef with Seals is his lack of experience -- which may actually be a strength. My second-biggest is that he doesn't even live in the 10th District, apparently.

And my biggest beef with Jewish voters on the North Shore is that they live in a district that lacks equality of access to opportunity and affordable housing, a district with pressing environmental, regulatory and economic challenges, and that, while Israel is an important consideration, it should not be their first unless they live there at least part of every year. (Sorry for the screwed up HTML -- no time to fix it.)

--T.A.

UPDATED: Here's a Republican take on the Oct. 26 debate between Kirk and Seals. As soon as I find a Democratic take on the subject, I'll post a link. SECOND UPDATE: Here's the Democratic take on the debate.

Comments

[karen]

Hi, David!!!

I appreciate all the work and thought you've put into this post. i'm pretty ignorant, but still love listening to all the possible outcomes of one person=one vote.

It sounds like the 2nd e-mail author has his shtuff together, eh? I wouldn't appreciate that outcome(as a Conservative):0).

Do you feel there is anti-Semitism on the Left? Moreso than the Right? Sometime check out www.allthingsbeautiful.com (oops) for a supportive Conservative blog and friend of Israel.

I saw a program on the Evangelicals going Green in places like West Virginia and thereabouts. It seems that the Right is getting more liberal, at least on the enviroment. I'm pretty green and have to go down cellar now to pile my alternative energy source. No, not cow chips.

Take care and think of the impact of the 2nd e-mailer's breakdown and how that would affect our dynamics in the world and also in our country. Israel deserves the support of the US against terrorism. Plain&simple. I don't think moving there is required to support them, but- i overspeak as i am not Jewish. I think any help given is appreciated.

[Vikkitikkitavi]

I think this whole argument is premised upon the belief that what the U.S. Government does to "support" Israel, is actually good for Israel.

And I don't buy that.

[karen]

What would be the alternative, Vikki?

And, what we think is support, what the American people are told- and what is really happening behind the scenes- may be two different things.

What would be good for Israel, IMhumbleO, would be for certain countries to stop the hate talk and the manuevering to ~whipe them off the map~. How does one get to that point- polite discourse? It seems kinda past that.

How much say does one have in all this foeign policy? As much as one vote for a Congressman/Senator & what they say. i've got Bernie Sanders running for Senate up here this yr- ugh. He kisses Chavez's Totalitaian hinders to get ~free oil~ for the poor. Big man.

[David]

Vikki: Interesting point.
Karen: It's going to be very hard to stop the "hate talk" in some of the other countries you're talking about. The only thing that's proven to work is a very strong military, and the willingness to use it -- and even that, as we saw this summer, is no guarantee.

Which isn't to say that talking is out. I want my representative in the House to be an educated realist, not just on Israel, but on housing, healthcare, the environment; on terror, on the deplorable state of our political landscape; on the economy, and on our individual civil liberties and the need to protect them. In these areas, too, dialogue is a must, in this increasingly polarized world.

Sometimes, a politician's experience is a weakness. In Mark Kirk's case, I think it's a strength.

[Herman]

You mentioned Seals "not living in the district."

He lives in Wilmette. According to his campaign's website, it is 1.5 blocks outside the district boundary and was gerrymandered out of the district.

This contrasts with Kirk, who (again, according to Seals' site) has lived in his DC home since 1984 and when he initially ran for office used his mother's Illinois home as his own address.

I feel more comfortable with Seals. The guy's been to Israel, went to JCC and Camp Chi, etc.

I hear the Pro Kirk poster on the occasional Dem with poor pro-Israel cred, but net-net I just feel more comfortable with the Dems' bedfellows than the Republicans'. A lot of the GOP *party line* (as to opposed to what some isolated elements in the party might say) gives me the creeps.

[fed up]

Seals was gerrymandered out of the district by who the. Ill democrats are the ones who drew the boundries, you have to do better than that. Maybe seals could run against. his congresperson you know the one with the husband that was just convicted of federal crimes that Im sure didnt help er campaign fund

[TomB]

We don't need the Chicago Democrat Machine expanding their power base North. Seals is a machine politician who will just force us in some way, shape, or form to pay more for Chicago's corruption.

[Vera Similitude]

Mark Kirk is most certainly NOT a "good congressman". He's was a CIA agent in 2004 when he was in the House, which is a conflict of interest. He likes to hide his CIA past. I'm not comfortable with the secret police making my laws! WHO thinks it's a good idea to put people in jail for twenty years for selling pot? Mark Kirk does! He also believes in betraying our elected leader by slandering him to the Chinese government.
I'd vote for a donkey over Kirk.