Posted on 10/07/2010 7:24:34 AM PDT by Maelstorm
You are wrong. We supported Scott Brown. He is not anti-gun, he is not a for seeking young girls over the state line for abortions with their parents consent, he is not a radical gay rights advocate, he is not a supporter of Cap and Trade.
No I supported John McCain, Scott Brown, and other flawed candidates but Kirk is not merely a flawed candidate. He is a ‘John Kerry’ Republican who has lied about his record to inflate himself while everyman soldiers die not for a tick on their resume but because they believe they are defending America. The guy is anti-gun beyond belief, and until recently has been radically pro-choice and pro-homosexual agenda even to the extent of defending his vote for “thought crime” legislation.
He does support free trade, and he did vote for the Bush tax cuts but he is just schizophrenic on fiscal issues supporting the first TARP bill and Obamas second “stimulus”.
He was one of 6 to vote for Cap and Trade which not only was about raising the cost of energy on families but controlling everything from how you build your house to what kind of toilets you could have. He is not a defender of liberty. He is a political Machiavellian Chameleon. That we have no business supporting and I don’t believe anyone with any conscience or who really believes in changing this country could support.
Is our goal after Nov to start compromising with Obama? Kirk would be the perfect candidate for that. I’d support him if I just could find common ground but the guy is the worst kind of politician, a coward not unlike his Democrat Opponent with whom he shares most positions.
Lets be clear. By opposing Mark Kirk now, you’re the one supporting the leftists.
I’m not supporting anybody. There isn’t a real conservative in the race, and I only support conservatives.
Mark Kirk is a Leftist, so your statement is nonsense.
I agree completely...the voters made their choice in the primaries.
Jedidah that is where you are just wrong. If we support candidates like Kirk and worry about “throwing our vote away” then we are just waiting to get the Republicans in power so they will start doing the same old crap they did last time. Unless we send a message that we aren’t going to accept candidates like Kirk they are going to continue to give us Mark Kirks, Charlie Bakers, and Mitt Romneys run whispering campaigns against our conservative candidates. Calling them lazy, calling them extreme, calling them out of the mainstream. Well Mark Kirk is way out of the mainstream of the Republican Party and on an entirely another planet from the Tea Party and conservatives.
This isn’t about purity this is about having people who really have the same goals even if they may disagree on the degree and way of reaching them. Kirk is not one of those men. Brady is still running ahead of Quinn, the only reason Kirk isn’t trouncing Alexi is because he is just another liberal Republican. He’ll lose because he isn’t fit to be Senator.
Peter Roskam could’ve stopped Obama. Kirk would’ve faced the same problem he is now. He is just another liberal and two liberals don’t make a right.
Sure, so let's oust them in conservative states like Alaska,South Carolina and Arizona.
I see no need to continue supporting them when they are just ‘Rats in disguise.....
Will he be better than Alexi Giannoulias?
Well, then vote for the RAT and “send a message”.
Maelstorm, the sad sad fact is that you have no choice: Illinois is going to elect a bad candidate.
You can vote for bad, or you can vote for badder, or you can be principled and throw your vote away and feel good about yourself.
I don’t care. I live in Texas.
But you better get to work grooming better choices for the next election.
The Combine wins REGARDLESS, but the question is whether you want a Socialist liar with an “R” who will soon be the next Judas Jeffords/Arlen Specter, or a Democrat crook who will go to prison, give the Dems and Zero a black eye, and gives Conservative Gov. Brady a chance to appoint a REAL Conservative to the office. Kirk HATES Conservatives, Conservatism, and is a pathological liar. I don’t want that faux Republican polluting the GOP caucus and serving as a mole for his master in the White House.
Let’s oust them EVERYWHERE they exist.
I look at it this way, Kirk has a 54% rating from the American Conservative Union. That means we’ll be able to count on Kirk’s vote more than 50% of the time in the Senate, possibly quite a bit more since he’s representing the entire state in the Senate not just a liberal-leaning suburban Chicago district. Better to take half a plate of what you want and half a plate of what you don’t rather than a full plate of steaming cow pies you’d get from Kirk’s Democratic opponent. We’d never have him with us on anything. And Kirk’s seat is one more seat towards having the majority and the committee chairs which is going to be so important both in terms of what gets done in the Senate and symbolically is dismantling Obama for his 2012 run. This electrician isn’t going to win. People need to step out of Wonderland and into reality.
Roskam couldn’t run, as the Combine threatened him if he did (and didn’t endorse the execrable Kirk). All they have to mention is two words: “Peter Fitzgerald.” Those other candidates were desultory nobodies, if any of them had the chance to win, they’d have also been similarly threatened/forced out of the race. A total joke.
So, vote Democrat?
No, we need as many “R's” as possible in Congress. Even if they don't have all our qualifications. Most RINo’s are with us on most issues, not all, but most and we need them to make some sweeping changes on Obama’s plan. Getting a veto-proof Senate would be heaven!!
I am happy with the purged liberals in most places, but honestly, it is hard to contain the idea of IL getting a GOP senator in Obama’s backyard.
That said, if we end up in a tie, I almost think we would have been better off staying in the minority but with people to derail Obama’s plans.
Can you name the last Democratic Senator who went to prison? You place way too much faith in either the Obama Justice Department or the Chicago justice system to do anything against Giannoulias. Remember, Congressional Dems get away with murder. Hell, Charles Rangel just won his primary in New York. And Chris Dodd is quietly resigning, not being run out of town on a rail like he should be nor being subjected to any ethics proceedings in the Senate nor any legal consequences for his far more clear-cut acts of corruption with Countrywide than anything that can be alleged against Giannoulias. And in Dodd's case, another Dem is running to replace him--and in the latest polls winning by a large margin. So there's been no black eye on Dems there certainly.
Sorry, I'd rather go with Kirk who the American Conservative Union gives a 54% rating, meaning he'll be with us more than half the time--possibly more since he'd be representing the entire state, not just a liberal-leaning suburban Chicago district. Giannoulias will be a reliable Democrat vote 100% of the time--and one more seat towards keeping the Dems in the majority and in charge of the Senate Committees and the Senate's business.
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.