I don't know exactly what that means but when Giannoulias wins by a small margin and the Democrats succeed in holding the Senate, I am sure you will be proud of your accomplishment.
You can pay the extra income tax I am going to be hit with Jan 1. Is that fair enough?
It means I already informed you on another thread that Kirk had voted to close Gitmo, voted for amnesty, and admitted he won't repeal Obamacare. Yet you choose to ignore the facts that were presented to you and repeat Kirk's talking points to get people to vote for him under false pretenses. Kirk supporters have been challenged on this board to show how Kirk differs from a Democrat and you can't think of any major issues so you resort to repeating Kirk's lies about he's "fiscally conservative" and "a hawk on defense" and so on. If Giannoulias wins by a narrow margin he'll be one of the weakest RAT Senators on the planet and so tainted by corruption that he'll have next to zero clout in the Senate. No one will want to get near him, including his fellow RATs. He's likely to get indicted and removed before the end of his six-year term, and if that happens I would indeed be happy because Bill Brady is almost certain to be Governor and would appoint a decent Republican (which means it won't be defeated RINO Kirk) to replace him.
But would I be happy with Giannoulias as Senator? Of course not, that's why I'm voting for Mike Labno. I won't be happy with either socialist liberal in the Senate, whether their name is Kirk or Giannoulias. Both are scum. If you're pleased that one of the socialists is likely to win, that's your problem. I'd prefer they both lose and Labno gets elected.
You say Alexi has no qualifications for the Senate other than being Obama's basketball buddy. He is of course a statewide elected official and serves as our state treasurer. I guess you don't count that qualification because he's been a failure in the role. The same is true of Kirk, his "qualification" for being Senator is being a Washington insider in Congress for 10 years. But during those 10 years, the man has compiled a track record of being on the WRONG side of history on nearly every major policy debate (stem cell funding, Iraq surge vote, SCHIP, ANWR drilling, TARP bailouts, no funding for Border Wall, Charlie Rangel's bonus tax, CAFE standards, etc.) Why does this man deserve a promotion after such an abysmal failed record? Congress has totally wreaked this nation during the last four years, and Kirk was eager to suck up to Pelosi and get on the "winning" side for most of those debates. Those policies have probably done even more damage to this country than Alexi did during his reign as Illinois Treasurer.
You're for Kirk because he supported the Bush tax cuts and doesn't want them to be repealed? There are over two dozen card-carrying Democrat Congressman (31 at present) who hold the same view. Do you endorse their candidacies too? Should we give them a promotion to the Senate so they can be a better position to continue championing the Bush tax cuts?
Then I really can't help ya. It's kinda fundamental.