Kansas Democrats missed opportunity to use Charlie Kirk | Opinion
A few days ago, I wrote about the potential unintended consequences of the KIRK Act, passed by the Kansas Legislature in the name of slain conservative activist Charlie Kirk.
I suggested that the act might not have the Legislature-desired effect of turning kids on to the conservative group Kirk founded, Turning Point USA. And indeed, it might do the opposite with its mandate that universities and colleges equally recognize and platform every political and ideological movement under the sun.
I wrote a little too soon.
Because a day after overriding the governor’s veto of the KIRK Act, lawmakers also overturned a veto of a sweeping measure they passed to harshly punish school districts that don’t stop students from walking out of class in protest.
It’s not a coincidence that the most recent round of student walkouts have been protesting ICE’s militant, violent and sometimes deadly enforcement of immigration laws under the Donald Trump administration.
The contradiction between those two laws was duly noted by Wichita Democratic Rep. Ford Carr.
“The entire premise behind the Charlie Kirk Bill was supposed to be free speech,” he said. “However, I guess it’s only speech that you choose to hear, and from the person that you choose to hear it, that makes it free.”
The KIRK Act was actually the second measure the Legislature passed this year honoring Kirk. The first established Kirk’s birthday, Oct. 14, as “Charlie Kirk Free Speech Day” in Kansas.
During his remarks on the KIRK Act, Carr was admonished by Republicans for remarks he made implying GOP lawmakers would need “testicles the size of bowling balls” to oppose a bill honoring Kirk.
Crudely stated, but he was on to something there.
As I reviewed the debate and Carr’s remarks, it occurred to me that the Democrats had missed a golden opportunity to advance their legislative priorities.
All they needed to do was attach Charlie Kirk’s name and a few “whereases” about what a great guy he was to whatever bill they wanted to pass.
For example: Kirk was shot to death during a public appearance on a Utah college campus.
The time couldn’t have been more ripe to introduce the “Charlie Kirk Gun Control Act,” to repeal the 2017 state law that legalized permitless concealed carry on campuses of Kansas universities and colleges.
Democrats also could have introduced the “Charlie Kirk Gay Rights Act” to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Point of reference: Kirk’s response to a college student who had asked how he could avoid being pulled to the left when his parents are Central American immigrants and he’s a member of the LGBT community.
Kirk assured the young man that President Trump was forming a “once in a generation bipartisan unity team” featuring “Democrats, independents and centrists,” including two former Democratic presidential candidates — Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard.
“I can understand because of the identifications you listed you might be thrown to the left,” Kirk said. “I’m here to tell you that there’s a place for you in our movement.”
I’m sure that kid’s now ecstatic over the moon that Kennedy and Gabbard are there representing his immigrant and LGBT interests in the administration. [end sarcasm font]
Those are just two examples.
Republicans would realize they were being played, but if they voted against gay rights and gun control, their opponents could flood the zone with hit-piece mailers: “WHY DIDN’T (insert legislator’s name) VOTE TO HONOR CHARLIE KIRK???”
You know, like the Republicans do to the Democrats in every election.
If nothing else, it’s a strategy that would have answered Ford Carr’s question to his GOP colleagues: “Do you have bowling balls or do you have raisins?”
Prove me wrong.
