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.
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".