Replies

>> Really? Because, unless Lindsey moved to Chicago recently, it seems to me that he's running against the president of Mafia Savings and Loan. <<

Yes, really. Mark Kirk's voting record is 10X worse than Lindsey Graham's "unacceptable" record. I'll be happy to compare them issue-by-issue. I am sick of hearing how freepers in so-called "red states" can throw a hissy fit if their candidate only does their bidding 80% of the time, but I have to accept socialists because that's "the best we can get" in Illinois. Bull. The fact solid conservatives like Peter Fitzgerald and Bill Brady are winning here proves that theory wrong.

Graham's RAT opponent was a 9/11 truther loon who promised to "bring our troops home" from all over the world, and promised to vote for Harry Reid for Majority Leader. A bunch of freepers voted for him anyway, and I'm not advocating anyone vote for Kirk's RAT opponent. Exactly what's your point?

The fact Mark Kirk's opponent is a mobbed up goon doesn't change Kirk's record and what kind of Senator he'll be. Was Stalin a good guy and decent leader of Russia because he helped defeat Hitler in WWII? No. Stain was still a communist dictator thug. Kirk could be running against Obama himself (as he pretty much ran against Obama's clone in the last election), and the fact remains that Mark Kirk is Jim Jeffords II and his voting record proves it.

Indeed, the very fact Kirk's opponent IS a blantantly corrupt machine hack proves that Kirk will do more damage in the Senate. Alexi is so blantantly corrupt he's likely to be indicted and removed from office within one of year taking office. At the very least, even if he stuck around his opinions will carry little weight in the Senate because he's damaged goods and so close to Obama. No Republican will be swayed to back anything because Alexi endorses it. The media won't get any mileage out of any of Obama's schemes when Alexi pushes for it. Kirk, on the other hand, will give Obama cover and give the media an excuse to claim Obama's legislation is "bipartisan" and supported by a top "Republican" official and Iraq vet. Kirk will be instrumental in getting other RINOs and "moderate" Democrats to back socialist schemes. Kirk may not be as liberal as Alexi, but he is in the position to move the GOP to the left and do far more damage in the Senate with help from his friends in the mainstream media.

>> Period. Illinois Republicans and conservatives had the chance to beat him in the primary and couldn't do it. <<

Don't get me started on Patrick Hughes and the fools who touted him as THE "credible" Kirk challenger in the primary and wouldn't give any other candidate the time of day (and bullied several of them out of the race). But again, this doesn't change the fact that Kirk is a lying socialist scumbag and wholly unfit for dog catcher, let alone U.S. Senator. Louisiana Republicans and conservatives had the chance to beat former KKK leader David Duke in the primary and couldn't do it. Since Duke the nominee, I guess we should have supported him, right?

>> Oh, for the record, Norm Coleman isn't in the Senate. We have 6 years of Franken. Coleman (and his wonderful investigation of the UN) doesn't look so bad now, does it? <<

As I just noted, Kirk is so bad that Norm Coleman looks like Ronald Reagan next to him. Kirk isn't a RINO, he's a DIABLO (Democrat In All But Label Only). Since I supported Coleman, I don't see your point. In fact, most of the freepers I know who oppose Kirk were on record supporting "RINOs" like John McCain for President, Scott Brown for Senate, Mike Dewine for Senate, and Norm Coleman for Senate after they won the primary. Gee, so much for theory that we're all knee-jerk cut-off-your-nose conservatives and "purists". I will happily back a right-of-center Republican who disagrees with me on some big issues. I will NOT back a socialist Democrat running with an "R" next his name.