Posted on 06/19/2010 4:04:30 PM PDT by Daniel T. Zanoza
The following open letter from Laurie Higgins to Illinois Republican Party leadership is posted below by RFFM.org with Mrs. Higgins permission. Higgins appeals to GOP leaders, urging Mark Kirk to bow out of the Senate race "for the good of the party." Higgins joins a growing chorus of conservatives who believe Kirk should be encouraged to do what's best for not only Illinois Republicans, but the integrity of the political process as well.
Laurie Higgins is an influential pro-family activist and a widely read columnist. Higgins has a background as an educator. Her articles and columns have been published across the country.
**********
Higgins writes:
I live in Deerfield, Mark Kirk’s Congressional District, and I’m writing to plead with the IL GOP to force Kirk to drop out of the Senate race. I have never voted for a third-party candidate, but this year for this race I will. Not only am I not voting for him, but I am urging everyone I know not to vote for him.
I will not vote for Mark Kirk. His votes on, for example, cap and trade, the troop surge in Iraq, abortion, and “hate crimes” legislation enrage me. And his prevaricating on both his military and teaching experiences is disgusting. In addition, his likely homosexuality and likely deceit about it are character issues for me. You managed to dump Jack Ryan for far less.
Some people argue that "for the good of the Party," Republicans have some sort of ethical obligation to vote for a prevaricator. I contend that for the good of the party, the prevaricator should bow out. I find it utterly hypocritical for Republicans to wax indignant at the idea that a Republican would refuse to support a lousy Republican candidate, as if not supporting Kirk is a moral issue of the highest order; those same indignant Republicans seem to find nothing morally problematic with Kirk’s lying, his support for the barbaric partial-birth abortion, and his support for the deeply troubling “hate crimes” legislation.
Kirk should go.
Laurie Higgins
* Higgins sent her letter to the following Republican Party leaders at the e-mail addresses listed below.
chairman@cookrepublicanparty.com ; ale05@sbcglobal.net ; fcapuzi@aol.com ; bbmayor@aol.com ; erdaw@comcast.net ; carolsdonovan@yahoo.com ; ctdudley@aol.com ; dmcginn@emhc.org ; skip@skipsaviano.com ; richtwprep@aol.com ; tchisum@aol.com ; sdaglas@sbcglobal.net ; diekelmanj@aol.com ; jmdgop@yahoo.com ; lyndafilipello@aol.com ; ccal2131@aol.com ; gwoodgop@aol.com ; bobcook353@hotmail.com
neocon1984, if you've been following Kirk's record as a constituent of his, you might "Get up to speed" with the fact he NEVER deviated from his far-left wing record until faced a primary challenger for the first time in a decade. If you can name ANY other past occasion in the last decade where Kirk was doing something socialist and then backed off because the GOP voters in his district complained, feel free to let me know.
Kirk was unopposed from 2001-2007, so he screwed over Republicans royally (betraying us on Iraq, limited government, bailouts, amnesty, etc.) and faced no repercussions for it. The man STILL refuses to budge from his extremist pro-partial birth abortion views, even though around 80% of Americans not just Republican voters oppose partial birth abortion. He'd have nothing to lose from dropping his support for this heinous procedure. Any voter who is THAT militantly pro-abortion and only support candidates who share their "values" is in the extreme minority of general election voters and is a guaranteed safe Democrat voter no matter what Kirk's position.
Kirk subsequently won the primary by nearly 60% of the vote, so that just emboldens him to screw over Republicans even more thinking he can do so with impunity. In case you missed it, Kirk has now flip-flopped on his primary campaign pledges to "lead the fight to overturn Obamacare" (he now actually "regrets" signing the Club for Growth pledge to work to repeal it), and his pledge to vote for "the Republican position" to keep terrorists in Gitmo. Obviously, the only people Kirk has been "listening to" lately are leftists.
What else will he betray Republicans on? What's to stop him from flipping back to his old Cap n' Trade position after November, claiming that his primary campaign position was good for Illinois but not good for the U.S. as a whole? Or claim that the "old" version of the cap n' trade legislation was "flawed" but the "new" version is "moderate and bipartisan" so he can support it now?
Bear mind that if Kirk wins in November, he can then do whatever he wants for the next six years without going before voters again.
Kirk throwing you a table scrap during the primary because he was afraid he'd lose to a real Republican for the first time in his career doesn't excuse his decade long record of treason. As a constituent in his district, you should know better than anyone else that Kirk has screwed over conservatives time and time again. How many times does it take before you get the message he can't be trusted?
He's done enough damage in Congress. When Kirk becomes Senator, he is not going to be accountable to anyone. Scary!
Cut off your own nose. Your face will feel the spite.
#13’s pretty hateful, in my eyes. But that’s just an opinion.
As far as “fact”. You said that Kirk was a homosexual. Care to cite that fact?
Not that I care one way or another.
Posted at F.R. a few weeks ago, Kirk doesn't deny but revels in the fact.
I find it interesting that you didn't even question my assertion that he is a "bastard". I admit I don't know about the illegitimacy of his birth. Pure conjecture on my part
We'll have this conversation again should Romney get the nomination in 2012, since you obviously will vote for anything with an "R" behind its name.
What, in your little adolescent secret code treehouse language?
There is no definition of "combine" -- noun or verb -- that calls it the right to vote. How old are you?
Waaaaa! Waaaaa! I don't have everything that I want! I'm not going to participate! Waaaaa! Waaaaa!
It's not like it's about an actual Senate seat or anything. No, it's about you proving how you won't settle for anything less than perfection.
I don't know why guys like you spend so much time telling us that you're not going to participate. How many threads like this do we have with children like you telling us how much you're not going to vote for somebody who could win? Spend your time more efficiently, play a little WOW, already.
"I'm not going to vote for Kirk." Fine. Then let others make the decision for where the republic goes while you sit and complain.
Assuming you're being honest and not being a Democrat booster troll, you must want Democrats to win so that you can complain about them. It's hard defending imperfect people, isn't it?
Really? Because, unless Lindsey moved to Chicago recently, it seems to me that he's running against the president of Mafia Savings and Loan.
Period. Illinois Republicans and conservatives had the chance to beat him in the primary and couldn't do it.
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?
I aims to excise a cancer, FRiend. You’d invite it to dinner and into your bed to copulate with it.
What is quite clear is the more you post, the more your ignorance and insolence grows. You obviously know nothing about IL politics, let alone much else.
Link? Thought I woulda seen that.
I'm not calling you a liar.
I'm just calling you an imbecile.
We'll have this conversation again should Romney get the nomination in 2012, since you obviously will vote for anything with an "R" behind its name.
So I guess you'll be campaigning tirelessly for somebody who can beat Romney. Or, more likely, you'll sit at the computer, naked eating cheetos, complaining that nobody's good enough.
If you don't vote for the R candidate in 2012, then you might as well cast a vote for Obama. You're casting half of one anyway.
And look at it this way, if Romney manages to get the nomination and then win the presidency, you can complain about him too.
Romney completes you.
Nope, you intend to kill the patient. I mean, it's not like there's an actual Senate seat at stake here. No, no, no. It's about you and whatever the internet warriors have decided is their little spite mission of the day.
What is quite clear is the more you post, the more your ignorance and insolence grows.
Insolence? INSOLENCE? Who the hell are you, Dr. Evil?
You obviously know nothing about IL politics, let alone much else.
Well, if you can't argue the facts, argue the man. I'm really not sure how a Tennessean third-party whiner and/or Democrat plant troll is some sort of expert on Illinois politics, but I guess I didn't get the Little Orphan Annie decoder ring.
My goodness gracious. You are the premier example of why arguing with idiots is a losing endeavor. When you’ve gotten yourself up to speed on the realities of the dynamics of Illinois politics (with special emphasis on the Combine), for which you are clearly below the level of a nursery school twat, er, tot, perhaps we can have a more erudite discussion. Toodles.
BTW, pull that red herring of geography out of your gargantuan anal cavity, it is truly most unbecoming, sir.
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.
I realize that you’re incredibly stupid, but here’s the deal: The one who gets the most votes wins.
That will either be Giannoulias or Kirk. Period.
I’d prefer it not be Giannoulias. You may not feel that way. Maybe you’re more interested in winning some schoolyard intraparty fight, but I’m concerned about a Senate seat and Kirk is better than the alternative.
At least, for conservatives.
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.
Perhaps you failed to notice most of the freepers from outside Illinois telling us we "have to" vote for Kirk are the same ones who threw a temper tantrum and announced they would vote for the RAT once Lindsey Graham won the GOP nomination. Since Kirk is FAR worse than Graham is, don't you think their "do as I say, not as I do" advice is just a tad bit hypocritical, hmmm?
>> It is a choice on the margins. Either R-Kirk or D-Giannoulias will be in the Senate. That's it. <<
Ah yes, we all know Bernie Sanders, James Buckley, Bob LaFollette, Joe Lieberman, etc., etc. NEVER served in the Senate, because there was NO WAY they could have been elected without an "R" or "D" next to their name on the ballot. The color of the sky in my world is blue. So what color is it in this alternate USA you come from where the ONLY people that ever became Senators were "R" and "D" nominees?
>> No they aren't. Fitzgerald dropped out after one term. <<
Ah yes, he CERTAINLY would been defeated by a Democrat if he ran for a second term, and the ONLY reason he won in the first place is he "bought" the election, right? Keep on repeating the mainstream media talking points, that'll work on this forum I'm sure. (the reason Keyes lost was because he was "too right wing" too, and had nothing whatsoever to do with the fact he was a last minute replacement candidate from out-of-state). The pro-RINO crowd here just can't bring themselves to accept the fact that the scary "unelectable" conservatives the mainstream media INSISTED had "no chance" of winning in Illinois ended up winning the general election.
But we'll just keep repeated those moldy discredited mainstream media talking points. Obama critics are racist! Lisa Madigan is independent of her daddy!
>> Bill hasn't won yet. I hope he does. <<
Bill Brady has been ahead of Pat Quinn by double digits since he won the nomination. Quite a contrast to what the "experts" told us during the primary about how a hard-core right-winger like Brady would scare away the soccer mommies in droves and the GOP will commit suicide if they nominate him instead of a go-along, get-along RINO like Kirk Dillard. Face it, the mainstream media and their internet lackey's who constantly insist we "have to" run Kirk-style socialists to "win" in this state have been proven worong.
>> 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. <<
So you admit Kirk is Jim Jeffords II, explain to me how Jim Jeffords I was "better" than the Democrat? What did the Dems lose from Jeffords that they could have gotten if his RAT opponent won the election? Sometimes the "Republican" nominee is just as liberal as many Democrats.
Again, the Kirk fan club always tells how "important" it was that Kirk kept his suburban lakefront district in "Republican" hands. How exactly would have the Democrat made things "worse"? If Dan Seals had won, he would have voted to close down gitmo, bail out wall street, pass SCHIP, pass cap n' trade, pass Charlie Rangle's 90 percent bonus tax, prohibit ANWR drilling, etc., etc.... basically everything Kirk did did after "we" won the seat. You could say Kirk voted for John Boehner for majority leader? So? Either way, Pelosi won easily. It made absolutely no different having a "Republican" in that seat during the last session, or for the last decade for that matter. Kirk has NEVER been the deciding vote when he "needed" him. Everything a piece of legislation came down to the wire and Kirk's voted "mattered", the traitor sided with the Dems. The main difference between Kirk and Seals was simply that Seals was honest about his marxist intentions, Kirk flat out lied and said he be "with us" on the WOT and legislate as a "fiscal conservative"
>> What color is the sky in your world? You just count on Eric Holder indicting a sitting Democrat Senator? Go ahead. <<
No, I count on the US attorney indicting a sitting Senator, which is pretty likely since he's already indicted a sitting Governor, Chicago city clerk, alderman, etc. Everyone around Alexi has already been indicted and his family bank has been seized by the feds. It's cute to watch the arguments that he'll be a Senator "for life". The current Dem in that seat is filling out the last two years of Obama's term and leaving in disgrace, and has no clout in the Senate. Obama spent 145 days on the job. Carol Moseley-Braun served one term and was DOA for re-election within 2 years of taking office, losing 99 out of 102 counties. And yet the Kirk adovocates here insist the most blantantly corrupt Dem nominee ever will be entrenched in that seat "for life". What IS the color of the sky in your world, indeed?
>> Yeah. Just one out of 100 votes. That's all. Duke was worse than the alternative. Are you saying that about Kirk? <<
Picture the headlines:
A) "President's immigration bill a good idea, says Indicted Obama pal"
A) "President's immigration bill is bipartisan, says decorated war hero GOP Senator"
Gee, I wonder which of those opinions would carry more weight with the beltway crowd and the American public. Which do you think the media would prefer? Bueller? Bueller??
Whether you want to accept it or not, Kirk may be not as liberal as Alexi but he is the position to do far MORE damage. Some of us would prefer the hard-core socialists on the other side where we can see them, rather than have them infiltrate and destroy the GOP from within.
>> You aren't an evil person for preferring an imperfect candidate. It's OK. There's no moral imperative in voting. <<
Ah, the old "you're a purist if you don't back Kirky" argument. Again, you must have missed where I said that I supported PLENTY of "imperfect" candidates. Do you think I agreed with John McCain every issue? Please. I will support a right-of-center Republican over a socialist Democrat. I will support a socialist Democrat with an "R" next to his name. Kirk should be running in the Democrat primary.
Your next insulting post to me will never even be read.
I have no tolerance for fools.
KMA Idiot.
We all know he is a RINO and no good. But slandering him by saying he is gay without any proof is disgusting.
There are gay groups whose sole purpose is outing Republicans. It is one thing for us to say the truth about him being a RINO, but by slandering the guy is going down to DU level and I don't like that at all.
Personally, I think the whole "gay" thing is hurting our cause and makes us look like fringe nuts, similar to truthers and those ilk.
Until someone comes out with proof that the guy is gay, leave him alone on that issue, it only makes us look petty and paranoid.
You said he was gay, that kind of stuff can ruin a person's life, forget about political career. I along with the rest of the IL FReep contingent will fight Kirk however, please stop with the gay rumors. You are slandering a person and have no business doing that.
Unless, you have pictures or videos of him with a dude, then drop it! It belittles all of us and makes us look like loony fringe people.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.