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.
So? Mark Kirk is not running against Lindsay Graham.
Illinoisans will not have Lindsay Graham on the ballot. Why is this so hard? It is a choice on the margins. Either R-Kirk or D-Giannoulias will be in the Senate. That's it.
The fact solid conservatives like Peter Fitzgerald and Bill Brady are winning here proves that theory wrong.
No they aren't. Fitzgerald dropped out after one term. Bill hasn't won yet. I hope he does.
and I'm not advocating anyone vote for Kirk's RAT opponent. Exactly what's your point?
What's yours? My tagline says it all.
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?
I don't think Godwin's law applies to Stalin, but it's close. It isn't about Kirk's virtue. You have a choice, you choose the least-worst option. Mark Kirk is Jim Jeffords II and his voting record proves it.
So? You have a choice -- Kirk, Giannoulias or sit on your butt.
Indeed, the very fact Kirk's opponent IS a blantantly corrupt machine hack proves that Kirk will do more damage in the Senate.
Here we go, the hard-sell from the Democrat booster.
Alexi is so blantantly corrupt he's likely to be indicted and removed from office within one of year taking office.
What color is the sky in your world? You just count on Eric Holder indicting a sitting Democrat Senator? Go ahead.
At the very least, even if he stuck around his opinions will carry little weight
Yeah. Just one out of 100 votes. That's all.
Don't get me started on Patrick Hughes and the fools who touted him as THE "credible" Kirk challenger in the primary
Let it go. It's over.
Since Duke the nominee, I guess we should have supported him, right?
Duke was worse than the alternative. Are you saying that about Kirk? As I just noted, Kirk is so bad that Norm Coleman looks like Ronald Reagan next to him.
Is Kirk running against Norm Coleman now?
You aren't an evil person for preferring an imperfect candidate. It's OK. There's no moral imperative in voting. You're attempting to put somebody in a Senate seat. You don't have to like it. You don't have to donate money to Kirk if you don't want to. But when it comes to the vote, if you don't vote for Kirk, then you are supporting Giannoulias. Sorry. That's just the way it is.