The other day I was watching MSNBC’s coverage of the run up to the Illinois Senate primary. They had Rep. Aaron Schock (R-OH) on talking about the virtues of one of the GOP Senate candidate, Rep. Mark Kirk.

To be honest, I don’t know much about Kirk. I’ve read some coverage about the race and he’s been described as a moderate who has the potential to have broad crossover appeal in a blue state.

But, I was struck by something Schock said during the interview. He called Kirk a “Scott Brown Republican.” I almost laughed aloud when I heard the reference. He was talking about the former State Senator and newly elected US Senator from Massachusetts who stunned the political world by winning former Senator Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat in the deeply Democratic commonwealth.

I’m guessing that he meant to imply that Kirk, like Brown, skews more to the moderate side of the Republican Party. But, frankly, how would you really know, given how little we really know about Scott Brown.

To be called a Republican or Democrat in the fashion of a leader of either party, that leader has to have a well established and earned reputation. For instance, if I called someone a John Warner Republican, you’d instantly know that I talking about a Republican with an independent/moderate streak who was willing to buck his party when necessary. Former Rep. Tom Davis (R-Fairfax) and former Rep. Chris Shays (R-CT) come to mind. If I called someone a Mark Warner Democrat, you’d likely think of a Democrat who avoided partisan politics and was more middle of the road. Rep. Tom Perriello and former Gov. Tim Kaine come to mind. You’d also get an immediate feel for someone if they were called a Ted Kennedy Democrat or a Pat Robertson Republican.

But, a Scott Brown Republican? All we know about Brown was is upset victory, his talk of independence, his nude Cosmo spread, and his pick-up truck. Does that really describe someone?

I know Scott Brown is the flavor of the month, but even that can be taken too far.