Mark Kirk for Senate Campaign Assisted From Roskam & Shimkus Robo-Calls

RFFM.org ^ | September 4, 2009 | Daniel T. Zanoza

[Daniel T. Zanoza]

Just the other day I learned U.S. Representatives Peter Roskam (6th District) and John Shimkus (19th District) are assisting the political efforts of fellow Republican House member Mark Kirk (10th District). Kirk is seeking the GOP's nomination in the 2010 primary for the U.S. Senate seat that will be vacated by Roland Burris. Both Roskam and Shimkus have taken part in the placing of automated phone calls to their constituents on behalf of Kirk.

I have been following politics for nearly 20 years and, the more I see, the more disillusioned I become regarding the political process. Perhaps disillusioned is the wrong word. Maybe disappointment would be a better description of my feelings regarding this matter. The support of Kirk by two conservative Republicans makes me pose this question: Why? ...

[fieldmarshaldj]

Why the hell are Shimkus and Roskam helping this liberal Democrat Combiner try to hijack the “R” nomination ?

[Dr. Sivana]

You might want to ask Rick Santorum.

[fieldmarshaldj]

I gave up on Santorum. Strike #1 was helping the liberal rodent Specter get renominated in ‘04. Strike #2 was endorsing the Socialist con-artist Slick Willard for President. If he endorsed Kirk, he’s dead to me.

[Dr. Sivana]

I don’t know that he’s endorsed Kirk. But your strikes one and two bring the points home. Strike one, of course, gave us a Democrat in the Senate regardless of who won, as is now official. It certainly did not help Santorum’s own re-election bid. Strike two, allowed McCain’s opposition to be neutralized.

After Sam Brownback endorsed Sebelius for HHS, and then hit me up for $$$ for the governor’s race, I canonly wonder what they put in the drinking water in D.C. Jack D. Ripper might be right.

[Philo1962]

Let’s try to be realistic about this. Electing a Republican in Illinois these days is very, very different from trying to elect a Republican in Utah or Wyoming. Shimkus and Roskam have concluded that Mark Kirk is the best chance to take the seat for the Republican Party.

I’m not happy about it either. But at this point, we really have to try to be a “big tent” party. I will support anyone who gets the Republican nomination, unless his last name is Blagojevich. And nobody named Blagojevich is going to win the nomination anyway.

I hope you understand and accept this in the spirit with which it’s intended. Let’s beat the Democrats first. We can worry about ideological purity later.

[Dr. Sivana]

Electing a Republican in Illinois these days is very, very different from trying to elect a Republican in Utah or Wyoming.

I understand what you are saying, and I disagree, especially for Illinois.

If we took your analogy, and substituted Pennsylvania for Illinois, Specter for Kirk, and Santorum for Roskam, it would seem to make sense.

Of course, now Specter is officially a Dem, instead of a RINO.

Even a big tent needs stakes to mark territory. In Illinois, one can be pro-life and pro-gun and still draw Dem votes. Glenn Poshard proved that. Those of us who live in Illinois can consider supporting the party above all else when the Judy Baar Topinka's and other combine operatives stop sabotaging good guys like Peter Fitzgerald, You may recall that was HIS seat. When he sent Patrick Fitzgerald snooping around on both parties he was told not to bother running for re-election. That opened up the seat for Obama.

Here in Illinois, it is not Republican vs. Democrat, it is Combine vs. not-so-Combine. I would vote for a Poshard over a Ryan (and did, and was proven right), and I would vote for a 3rd party over a Judy Baar Topinka. The state Republicans started it with the way they treated Fitzgerald, and later Keyes (a bad situation, but they didn't even put their game face on).

[fieldmarshaldj]

"Let’s try to be realistic about this."

Sorry, but I know where you're going with this.

"Electing a Republican in Illinois these days is very, very different from trying to elect a Republican in Utah or Wyoming."

So let's elect a liberal Democrat as an "R", because that's "all we can get" in IL ? Sorry, Philo. No more settling. Combiner scum like Kirk will get us nothing but trouble. He represents everything wrong with the IL GOP, and national RINOs. Kirk makes Chuck Percy look like Jesse Helms.

"Shimkus and Roskam have concluded that Mark Kirk is the best chance to take the seat for the Republican Party."

I conclude they're wrong. By the way, what will they do when Kirk switches to the Democrat party officially when he's elected ? How'd that work out for Rick Santorum endorsing Arlen Specter as "the best hope for the PA GOP" ?

"I’m not happy about it either. But at this point, we really have to try to be a “big tent” party."

Sorry, but the only thing you find under a big tent is a circus. A party that stands for everything stands for nothing.

"I will support anyone who gets the Republican nomination, unless his last name is Blagojevich. And nobody named Blagojevich is going to win the nomination anyway."

The diff between Mark Kirk and Milorad Blagojevich is that Blago doesn't try to insult our intelligence by claiming to be a Republican. He's got a helluva lot more intellectual integrity than Mark Kirk.

"I hope you understand and accept this in the spirit with which it’s intended. Let’s beat the Democrats first."

Exactly. We start by keeping liberal Democrats from hijacking our party nomination by defeating Mark Kirk and all other Combiner scum in the primary.

"We can worry about ideological purity later."

Nope, we nominate principled Conservatives now, pledged to shrinking government, standing up to Zero, and standing up to corruption (the Combine). No more liberal RINOs standing opposed to everything we hold to be right and true. No more Mark Kirks.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Post #8. We’re thinking alike.

[fieldmarshaldj]

I’m just so fed up with these guys. So many start off well enough, but it seems like once they get up to about 6 years in office, that’s when the Potomac Fever kicks in. This lust for power, staying in office forever, getting chummy-chummy with opponents of what is right (witness Hatch and Ted Kennedy). Brownback has been in since 1995, that’s closing in on 15 years, and it seems apparent he has jumped the proverbial shark. You could probably count on one hand how many are still able to remember why they were sent to DC. As for Brownback, I was informed by another FReeper that he’s merely using the KS Governorship as a stepping-stone BACK to DC, in this case, the White House (either running in ‘12 or ‘16). It’s just all about the power and the ego-trip. If Brownback had a serious primary opponent for Governor, I’d support them. Enough is enough.

[Impy]

I’m not happy about it either. But at this point, we really have to try to be a “big tent” party. I will support anyone who gets the Republican nomination

What if new "Republican" Paul Vallas did?

I except moderates. But you need to have a standard. Then tent can't be so big anyone can come in.

What I consider 'minimally' acceptable for a Republican in good standing is 60% conservative. (however you want to measure it). I'd call Kirk 40% conservative at this point. He's closer to Obama politically than he is to the average Republican voter. I don't want to be in the same party with people as liberal as him.

If he's nominated I'll probably vote for him (he could change that by continuing to move to the left) in what would then amount to democrat primary runoff between center-left Kirk and the moonbat scum regular democrat.

But make no mistake I virulently oppose nominating him or anyone as liberal as him as a Republican for any office, in any state. I'll be voting for Eric Wallace in the primary.

I also submit for you the theory (I think first posted by fieldmarshaldj) that should indictment-waiting to happen Alexi Giannoulias is the rat nominee and is elected over Kirk and a Republican (besides RINO scum Dillard) wins the Governorship that may provide us with more benefit than adding another Arlen Specter (when we just got rid of the original) because once he goes to prison the Governor will replace him, hopefully with an actual Republican and not Kirk.

Just a hypothetical. But very plausible.

[BillyBoy]

Interestingly enough, the Daley mafia that has controlled Chicago since the 50s got their start thanks to GOP voters with the "anyone with an R next to their name is acceptable" mentality. Back in 1935, David Shanahan, a Republican state rep in a safe GOP district suddenly died, and old man Daley (father of the current Mayor), quickly filed as a "Republican" for the special election before the local GOP could find someone. Daley had been a Democrat city official, lifelong Democrat voter and Democrat precinct captain at that time. When election day rolled around, "Republican" Richard J. Daley was duly elected over the previously slated token Democrat "opposition" to David Shanahan. After taking his seat in the Illinois General Assembly, Daley immediately moved to caucus with the Democrats and made his switch back to the RAT party official in 1938. And thus began the Daley takeover of Chicago.

Quite ironic, that the very source of all Democrat corruption in Illinois got their start in elected office thanks to broken glass Republicans. If GOP voters in that district had simply refused to vote "Republican" for that office, the Daley clan would never gotten power.

And Kirk is definitely a big time combiner, he's not one of those "clean" RINOs who is against the combine like Ron Gidwitz. Kirk was bankrolled by Tony Rezko, and was caught on tape during this year's special election telling big time Chicago machine crook John Fritchey that he could "either endorse him or condemn him, whatever helps the most" when Fritchey was running in the RAT primary for Emanuel's vacant seat.

[Philo1962]

We aren't going to get another opportunity like this for 20 years. We have a chance to revitalize the Republican Party in Illinois. We have a golden, God-given opportunity to take this Senate seat, and establish our new Republican senator as the leader of the Illinois Republican Party.

There are no Democratic heavyweights announcing that they want to run for this Senate seat. It's radioactive for them. There is a wave of anti-Democratic Party sentiment: both nationally, because Obama is badly overplaying his hand (and let's hope he's fool enough to continue doing exactly that), and at the statewide level, because of Rod Blagojevich.

We have to choose our nominee very carefully. The party has been badly splintered ever since George Ryan was indicted. The Judy Baar Topinkas and Mark Kirks have taken it over. I don't like it. And I would never vote for Mark Kirk in the primary. But we have to deal with the world as it is, rather than how we would like it to be.

Roskam and Shimkus decided to run robocalls for Kirk because they believe he can win. If you want to beat Kirk in the primary, you'd better bring your elephant gun. And by that, I mean pick one candidate who we can all get behind, and has a good chance to beat Mark Kirk, and donate generously. Walk the precincts for him, knock on doors for him, man a phone bank for him. We need a candidate who can inspire thousands of other people to do it too. Somebody like Jack Ryan, but without the negative history laying around for the Chicago Tribune to dig up.

Consider that the MSM has anointed Mark Kirk as the GOP nominee a year in advance, because they'd rather see him in that Senate seat than a true conservative. So we'll be up against the news media too.

For all these reasons, I'm sorry, but Eric Wallace can't win the primary against Mark Kirk. I think Jim Durkin is the guy for this job, if we can convince him to run. He won the nomination in 2002 but lost to Dick Durbin in November, under far more difficult circumstances. If Durkin had any negative history, the MSM would have unearthed it and smeared it all over their front pages back in 2002.

He's a fiscal conservative, which will go over really well in this climate. He's opposed to both gay marriage and civil unions. He voted against stem cell research, but he also voted against parental notification. He voted in favor of a moment of silent reflection in the classroom. Most significantly, he voted against the "Temporary Income Tax Increase and Tax Credit for Green Businesses," which is as close as the Illinois legislature has come to the "cap and trade" bill that Mark Kirk supported (and for which Kirk betrayed us all).

Jim Durkin is a lot more conservative than Mark Kirk, he can win the primary, and he can win in November, but we all need to write him a letter and convince him to run. We have to promise "our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor," and hope that someday, he has a "Road to Damascus" moment about abortion.

[fieldmarshaldj]

"We aren't going to get another opportunity like this for 20 years."

I'd say we'll get another one sooner than you think. If that scum Combiner Kirk faces fellow Combiner Giannoulias in the general, and Giannoulias is elected (and if those are the choices, I HOPE he is), he will be indicted and likely forced from office, and we'll get to do this all over again in '12. Of course, if we are smart enough to nominate a NON-Combiner Conservative, we won't have to go through that scenario.

"There are no Democratic heavyweights announcing that they want to run for this Senate seat. It's radioactive for them."

Giannoulias is running, and he has already won statewide. First tier and crooked.

"We have a chance to revitalize the Republican Party in Illinois."

Start by running out the crooked Combiners in bed with the Democrat party.

"We have a golden, God-given opportunity to take this Senate seat, and establish our new Republican senator as the leader of the Illinois Republican Party."

That's why we MUST, at all costs, stop Mark Kirk from winning, both in the primary and if he buys the nomination for Nov '10. We cannot allow a Combiner be the face of the IL GOP. We will continue to rapidly decline if we do not purge this massive cancer destroying the state party.

[Philo1962]

Why wait, and take a chance that Giannoulias will beat the rap? As you know perfectly well, getting a conviction against any crooked Democratic politician in this state is far from a sure thing. Win it in 2010, when anti-Democratic Party sentiment will be at its strongest. Don't wait until 2012, after the wave has already crested.

Durkin is an acceptable candidate, far more conservative than Mark Kirk, and able to win in November.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Problem is, Durkin isn’t running, and unless you can get EVERY primary candidate out of the race for him, I doubt he could win (even one on one with Kirk), and he scarcely did very well in the general the last time he ran (and his name confuses the voters — too close to “Durbin.”).

Nope, the Combine that controls the state party (which is nothing but an adjunct of the Democrats) is going to ram that trash Kirk right down our throats. The Combine must be smashed into a million pieces, they are the single biggest impediment to change in IL.

You’d also better hope the wave hasn’t crested by ‘12, because if we have a blowback against the GOP, Zero gets a second term, and that’s the last thing we want.

[yongin]

Roskam is being strong armed by the DC establishment to give cover for Kirk. Remember Roskam’s district went big for Obama last year. The DC establishment told Roskam, “No support for Kirk means no support for you.”

[fieldmarshaldj]

Roskam will have to choose if supporting the Combine is more important than his Conservative credentials. With his support of Kirk, he is proving himself to be a 100% gold-plated phony.

[Philo1962]

Problem is, Durkin isn’t running, and unless you can get EVERY primary candidate out of the race for him, I doubt he could win (even one on one with Kirk), and he scarcely did very well in the general the last time he ran (and his name confuses the voters — too close to “Durbin.”).

I agree that in the Durbin/Durkin race, the similarity didn't help Durkin. But in a Giannoulas/Durkin race, the similarity will help Durkin. There are a lot of brain-dead Dims from the South Side and West Side of the city, who might vote for Durkin because they think they're voting for Durbin.

The Democratic Party leadership is aware of this, and they'll expend money and other resources trying to educate their voters: "Hey, this isn't Dick Durbin." They may even get a TV commercial from Dick Durbin himself, saying, "That isn't me." This could create a backlash among other voting blocs, who will be insulted by the notion that they can't figure it out for themselves.

As you can see, nominating Durkin in this particular race causes problems for the Democrats. They'll have to handle it very carefully. And any time we cause problems for them, it makes it easier for us to win.

The argument you've made against Durkin in the primary (that he can't beat Mark Kirk, even if it's a one-on-one contest) is far more powerful when used against a guy like Eric Wallace, who has never held an elected office before. Durkin has a long history of service in the state senate, and he has won the nomination before. I believe the only reason Roskam and Shimkus are running robocalls for Kirk is that Jim Durkin hasn't announced that he's running.

If Durkin announces that he's running, I think Roskam and Shimkus (and the rest of the Illinois conservatives) will support him. And Mark Kirk will look like the Combine RINO that he is.

[PhilCollins]

It’s too late to persuade State Rep. Durkin to run. All conservatives should support Dr. Eric Wallace. I’m his northern Cook Co. coordinator. If you know anyone, in that area, who wants to volunteer, for him, please ask them to email me at philacollins@yahoo.com.