Replies

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.

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).

"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.

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.