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
So let's all agree to drop this gay crap until someone actually provides solid evidence that he is gay.
I don't enjoy defending him, but I would defend a democrat over false accusations of their sexuality. That is probably the most serious thing you can accuse someone of besides a crime.
We can all agree Kirk sucks, but let's not take "Kirk sucks" literally. Let's just stick with the issues.
Abortion, gun control, cap and tax, ect... but quit slandering him about the gay thing, like I said that can ruin lives. Who cares about political careers.
There were people posting back during the Bush years that he was gay, there are rumors of Obama being gay. For Christ sakes let's quit accusing people of their sexuality unless there is solid evidence to back up a claim.
I don't wanna be associated with that bullcrap.
Kirk is queer.
“Unless, you have pictures or videos of him with a dude, then drop it”
Yeah, I’m really going to let you order me around.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2525571/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2526155/posts
“I along with the rest of the IL FReep contingent will fight Kirk “
As I recall, you are a very recent convert.
He made James Inhofe a committee chair.
I know you have a super-secret plan, but you don't win by losing. When liberal Republicans lose to ultra-liberal Democrats, the lesson that is learned is not "let's get more conservative".
Self-hatred is a horrible thing.
The problem is, you think I was being insulting. I was paying you a compliment. But I guess these things are all relative.
Ah, but you're no fun. It's clear that, instead of playing along or bantering back, you look for any excuse not to rationalize your actions.
Finally, I don't write my posts for you to read them. There are plenty of lurkers.
AmishDude we IL conservatives appreciate the help of any freeper from anywhere in trying to get Kirk out of this race.
Yes Kirk beat a bunch of nobodies in the primary that name conservatives were “encouraged” not to run in (by the combine, obviosuly you and Graybeard had a misunderstanding but you can PM him or Billyboy and they’ll tell you what it is). But you know what? Kirk will lose the GE.
With both candidates being pieces of crap the Democrat will win. Exactly like the 2006 race for Governor. Blago was as popular as stepping in dog crap yet he won cause we nominated trash.
Kirk is not the nose on our face. More like a cancerous skin lesion.
I’m really sick of people who blast others for not wholeheartedly supporting liberal Republicans and claiming they can’t “settle for less than perfection” and “aren’t participating”. For the thousandth time I’ll say there is a big distinction between a sub-par Republican like Lindsay Graham and a liberal like Mark Kirk.
Yes get the rope ready I’m kinda defending Graham. I don’t like him, no one does. I opposed his renomination and will do so again. I backed him against his ex-Pat Buchananite turned Ron Paulite turned democrat opponent and would do so again.
But he’s someone with a mostly conservative voting record who has bad positions on a few key issues and a McCainish tendency to bash the right. He’s much much better than Kirk, I’d walk over broken glass to vote for him over Kirk.
Norm Coleman is a moderate/moderate to conservative guy. He has good positions on many issues important to conservatives. I backed him without reservation and think MN conservatives who didn’t vote for him in November 2008 were tom fools. I would gladly accept a Republican of similar record to run here in Illinois. He’s much better than Kirk.
I think there should be a standard for Republican candidates, the standard should be decidedly less than “perfection” but better than Mark Kirk and Susan Collins who on their best days are half Republican.
I’ve posted something similar to that many times. Billyboy has posted the same argument even more times. Not so much as once has one of the people calling others frivolous perfectionists ever indicated that they comprehend the argument. Not once. Will you be the first Amishdude? The first to understand one can have a standard and not be a “purist” who won’t for vote for anyone if they are to the left of Alan Keyes. To me it seems like a very clear and easy to understand concept.
I’m guessing the answer is no since you are posting ignorant condescending drivel like “You aren’t an evil person for preferring an imperfect candidate. It’s OK.” If you respond at all I expect you will rephrase something personally insulting you have already said.
Apillar, you are underwhelmed by the severity of Kirk’s filthy lies when compared to the rank corruption of the rat who was a banker for the mob? Me too, me too. But a rat who had told the same lies as Kirk would be regarded as lower than pond scum by freepers. A perfect conservative wouldn’t deserve (yet may have gotten from freepers, myself included) a pass for bloating up his military record for electoral reasons let alone a liberal ‘Republican’ like Kirk. It’s really a despicable thing to do.
Add a total lack of integrity to liberal policies and what do you get? There’s a good chance you get something that rhythms with “Leffords” and “Recter”.
Finally a point on Kirk’s sexuality.
I think the rumors are credible enough to be discussed. A democrat with similar strength rumors would be the butt of a gay joke in every other post about them.
But I don’t know if he’s gay. I don’t care if’s gay. I don’t care if Graham is gay.
I’d walk over hot coals to vote for an HIV positive gay conservative over a devoted family man RINO/democrat who loves his wife and kids and coaches little league and voted for partial-birth abortion and cap and trade.
Cause what I care about in a candidate are 2 things. How they’ll vote and how likely are they to win and lead.
Kirk we know will vote poorly (better than moonbat slime Alexi but still poorly) but it looks more and more likely that he won’t get the chance because Mr. Electable Kirk is looking like worse than even money.
So you can see why I want him to take a hike.
How’d a guy like that get so far in GOP politics? Whose fault is that?
Impy, I agree that Rep. Kirk will probably lose. In Feb. 2006, I heard many Republicans say that we should nominate then-Treasurer Judy Topinka, for governor. They said that she would win the general election, since she’s moderate. She won her primary, but, in the general election, she got 38% of the vote. In Jan. 2008, I heard many Republicans say that we should nominate Dr. Steve Sauerberg, for the U.S. Senate. They said that he would win the general election, since he’s moderate. He won his primary, and, in the general election, he got 29% of the vote. These facts prove that, in Illinois statewide elections, moderate Republicans don’t win. Within the past 20 years, Illinois has had one republican U.S. senator, Peter Fitzgerald, a conservative. Since Kirk is liberal, he’ll probably lose.
When Kirk ran for Congress, in 2000, the race had 11 Republicans. Since Kirk was an aide to then-Rep. John Porter (the congressman Kirk wanted to replace), Porter endorsed Kirk. The conservative vote split, helping Kirk win the primary with 31% of the vote. In 2002, ‘04, ‘06, and ‘08, Kirk didn’t have any primary opponents, and he won the general elections because the district has many voters who vote for any Republican, since he was the lesser of two evils. He usually got 52%-55%. During this year’s U.S. Senate primary, no other well-known Republican ran, so Kirk won with 57%.
Like you, that's not a good reason to not to vote for a real Conservative but Kirk is clearly more liberal than most, if not all democrats.
I have never voted for a democrat in my life, I won't start by voting for a democrat with an "R" behind his name.
I do not bother to read any replies from Amishdude, he lives to be the nasty vile person he is. I won't ping him either, that is a courtesy not a rule and he is not worthy of a courtesy.
I'm sorry I responded at all to his nastiness and if he sees this reply he has my apology for my part in the nastiness. Kirk nor Romney will ever get my vote.
Heresay is not acceptable in a court of law, and I think, accusing someone of being gay without facts is disgusting.
I would hope he'd sue you for slander because that is what you deserve. Go look in a law book, go to a library if you need to, and read up on "slander".
You are slandering a man with unsubstatiated facts, simply because you don't like him.
Do you agree with those who said Bush was gay? Because there were lots of rumors about that.
Or are you the "pick and choose" type who only attacks people you don't like.
I'm a big believer in karma, don't be surprised if one day your child tells you they are gay, what are you going to do then?
He is simply a far left RINO, who supports everything we are against.
But his sexuality has NOTHING to do with this race. It belittles our arguments and it belittles this website and all of the other IL FReepers who are trying to change candidates.
I don't want to be associated with out right liars when you have no evidence other than a guy who claims he had sex with him.
Do you remember the Duke LaCrosse case??? Did you believe the poor innocent stripper who tried to ruin three mens lives? That was just one case of a thousand false claims of sex, rape, whatever...
Obviously you are stuck in your ways and are clueless that you are belittling our arguments.
If an independent minded person came in a read your posts they would probably think you belonged to the KKK.
I don't know why you are so obsessed with this gay stuff, is there something troubling in your past that you haven't dealt with yet? Because there were quite a lot of people who were big time gay bashers who turned out to be gay themselves.
Kirk seems like another RINO of the country club.
it has everything to do with this race if he will not sign the federal marriage amendment.
it has everything to do with this race if he will allow homosexual politics to infest the military.
there is no need for toe tappers (ala whats his name at the airport) in public service or anywhere near public policy.
That wasn't your original contention, that was telling me in effect to shut up or provide links, which I promptly did.
Having read the rest of your reply, I see that you deal heavily in personal attacks also. So go ahead with them, you are now having a monologue.
And Kirk is still queer.
My yougest of 4 children is 35 years old and have families of their own. I don't really look for any of them to "come out of the closet."
I'm a big believer in karma
I am not calling you a liberal but do you have any idea how liberal that is?
I realize that you're incredibly stupid, but may I point out -- once again -- that Kirk is not running against Lindsay Graham.
Why is this so hard? Oh, wait, you're stupid.
This isn't about purity or party infighting or any other damned thing.
It's about a 6-year Senate seat and if you want to know what a big (Biden)ing thing that is, ask Republicans in Minnesota. You know what they got? They got Franken.
Correction, we all got Franken.
I don't care about the petty politics of the IL GOP. Maybe you're the assistant chief vice underling for Podunk County and you think that if the party is small enough, then you get to run it. Here's the deal: The primary's over. And it was decisive. It was not even close.
You can whine and cry that the Kirk supporters in the GOP hierarchy didn't beg people that they oppose to run against him, but nobody won and that's the way it is. You are not going to win by pulling down people who won primaries fair and square. You're going to lose the Senate seat and lose what little influence you have in the state.
Time to follow Reagan's commandments. No more Sore Losermen. Want to advance conservatism? Elect a governor and give up this petty, childish jihad.
Just curious, do you play soccer for Italy?
It's like fencing with a club-wielding caveman.
"This isn't about purity or party infighting or any other damned thing."
There are several reasons, for which you have been told repeatedly, and continue to disregard, as if they're not even a problem in your little fantasy world of "let's elect any Republican regardless of how destructive or disreputable they are." Guess what, these are real problems with real repercussions outside of IL. Maybe they don't effect your little spot out in the middle of an Iowa cornfield, but they effect the rest of us.
"It's about a 6-year Senate seat and if you want to know what a big (Biden)ing thing that is, ask Republicans in Minnesota. You know what they got? They got Franken. Correction, we all got Franken."
And here you produce examples that have NOTHING to do with the IL situation. Perhaps you're familiar with a concept known as voter fraud. Democrats managed to "find" enough votes AFTER the election along with judges willing to rubber stamp said fraud to install Franken. So much for the myth of Minnesota being a "clean state." Of course, they have a George Soros Secretary of State. But again, totally irrelevent to the discussion of Kirk.
"I don't care about the petty politics of the IL GOP."
Thank you. An honest admittance for a change. Because you don't care, I don't see how your uninformed opinion of this subject brings anything to this discussion. You're in a thread with people who DO know what is going on in IL and do give a damn about the slime that rises to the top there, aided and abetted by a bipartisan Chicago-Springfield crime coalition known as the Combine.
"Maybe you're the assistant chief vice underling for Podunk County and you think that if the party is small enough, then you get to run it. Here's the deal: The primary's over. And it was decisive. It was not even close."
It was not even a legitimate contest. There were no serious reformists running, and it was by design. You ever heard of a "fixed" race, Hoss ? The Combine let it be known they would have their candidates running in the general for the Senate race. Alexi/Kirk, no difference. Whichever won, the Combine would have their man in DC to join their other one, Dick Durbin.
"You can whine and cry that the Kirk supporters in the GOP hierarchy didn't beg people that they oppose to run against him, but nobody won and that's the way it is. You are not going to win by pulling down people who won primaries fair and square. You're going to lose the Senate seat and lose what little influence you have in the state."
Once again, you don't get it. We already LOST this race. Neither Alexi or Kirk is acceptable, both are puppets of a corrupt political alliance. Kirk doesn't serve the Republican party, he serves the IL Combine. The same outfit Zero serves. If it's a choice between a corrupt RINO or a corrupt Democrat, it's a no-brainer, you let the Democrats own it. Kirk will cause us a lot more damage than Alexi will, since Alexi will probably be heading to prison before long and will embarrass the Democrats. A Governor Brady can then appoint someone not tainted by the Combine to the vacancy, presuming he has the courage to face them down.
"Time to follow Reagan's commandments. No more Sore Losermen. Want to advance conservatism? Elect a governor and give up this petty, childish jihad."
Thanks for your worthless and ignorant advice. When you're interested in fighting corruption, you get back to us. Otherwise I suggest you stick to the cornfield and STFU.
I didn't realize that I was dealing with such delicate flowers.
"let's elect any Republican regardless of how destructive or disreputable they are."
He won the primary. Fair and square.
Guess what, these are real problems with real repercussions outside of IL.
Exactly. One of 100 Senators. Yet another liberal Dem effects me. I'd rather have the liberal Rep. Just the realities of being a Republican and fundraising means that conservatives will have more influence on him than any Dem. Besides, this isn't some Scoop Jackson situation. You have two choices and Kirk is better.
Unless, that is, you're a Democrat troll.
And here you produce examples that have NOTHING to do with the IL situation.
Illinois isn't some magical fairyland where the laws of politics, economics and physics don't apply. I do not want another Franken in the Senate if I can help it.
You're in a thread with people who DO know what is going on in IL and do give a damn about the slime that rises to the top there, aided and abetted by a bipartisan Chicago-Springfield crime coalition known as the Combine.
So? You are so dense. Do you not understand the concept of "better than the alternative"? If you get Alexi, the situation isn't any better. By its very nature, the GOP is less tolerant of corruption. It can happen in both parties, but the Republicans are better at snuffing it out. It's a feature, not a bug, of socialism.
It was not even a legitimate contest. There were no serious reformists running, and it was by design. You ever heard of a "fixed" race, Hoss?
Yes, it was a conspiracy. Why, Kirk and Giannoulias are actually the same person! Have you ever seen them in the same place? And I heard that all of the politicians with ambition in Illinois were put into pods and replaced by aliens.
Or maybe, just maybe, Kirk had name recognition and an early primary date going for him. Funny, Brady had the same deal and he made out OK.
It makes your nihilistic heart go pitter-pat if you can convince yourself that there's never any difference, even a marginal one. It's better for your suicidal personality to lose and wallow in your misery.
Real men, like the founders, had real obstacles and overcame them.
They didn't whine.
And they would laugh at your juvenile kvetching as you bitch about the tyranny of your omnipotent "Combine".
Once again, you don't get it. We already LOST this race. Neither Alexi or Kirk is acceptable,
I don't live in the land of "acceptable". I live in the real world. And in the real world, there is no kingpin pulling the strings. There are alliances and they last as long as those engaging in them benefit. he serves the IL Combine. The same outfit Zero serves.
You are a paranoid imbecile living in delusions.
You know what? Forget it. Go with that. You know what else? I'm with The Combine. *Cue spooky music* And we're bugging your house. We're all in on it, too. All of the IL Dem primary voters. All of the IL Rep primary voters. We're each just a fatcat drawing a multimillion dollar salary from this machine running everything. The country club is nice, BTW. We're not any different. We're clones. The same DNA flows through all our veins, we just wear different wigs. That's why we had to get rid of Blago, his wig slipped off too often.
Thank God none of us have any ambitions except to serve the machine. We aren't quite sure what we get out of serving the machine, but we do it anyway because we have no will of our own. We wouldn't want to be too ambitious because...well, we aren't sure what will happen. But rest assured, Illinois isn't a state with liberal voters. Nope. It's all run by us.
Who made Steve Guttenberg a star? Yep. You got it. Us.
If it's a choice between a corrupt RINO or a corrupt Democrat, it's a no-brainer, you let the Democrats own it.
"We celebrate our recent World Cup victory for the people!" -- today, Kim Jong Il
If the strategy is to win by losing, you must be the biggest loser around.
since Alexi will probably be heading to prison before long and will embarrass the Democrats.
Two problems: (1) Democrats don't go to prison and (2) Democrats don't embarrass.
And, gee, isn't it funny that now there are Democrats? I thought it was all The Combine. *Cue spooky music*
A Governor Brady can then appoint someone not tainted by the Combine to the vacancy, presuming he has the courage to face them down.
Dude, you have a Rube Goldberg political strategy. What could possibly go wrong? I'm thinking that the man won't end up diving into the washtub at the end.
BTW, how did Brady manage to avoid the rotating blades of The Combine? *Cue spooky music again*
Otherwise I suggest you stick to the cornfield and STFU.
You know what I love about you win-by-losers? Your rapier wit and charming sense of humor! But not your sarcasm, you never seem to get sarcasm.
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.