Posted on 05/31/2013 1:38:18 PM PDT by chicagolady
Things are getting strange as state GOP leaders head toward a Saturday decision on who is going to be the new chairman of the Illinois Republican Party.
Last night U.S. Senator Mark Kirk was on WTTW’s Chicago Tonight with Carol Marin. One of the topics covered was the resignation of Party Chairman Pat Brady. The discussion went like this: (see video below at 4:26 minutes)
(Excerpt) Read more at illinoisreview.typepad.com ...
1) Kirk voted for Cap and Trade
2) Kirk is pro-abortion (got a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood and NARAL)
3) Kirk voted against the Surge in Iraq
4) Kirk got an “F” rating from the NRA
5) Kirk is a John McCain RINO - only more liberal
In case you didn’t hear the “BIG NEWS,” U.S. Senator Mark Kirk (R-Illinois), serial prevaricator, has finally come out of the closet on marriage. He has announced his support for the elimination of sexual complementarity from the legal definition of marriage. I’m shocked.
It’s people like you who ignore Mark Kirk’s Voting record!
Mark Kirk’s “moderate” record, 2007-Present
LEFITST GROUPS - Voted with Planned Parenthood 100% of the time - Voted with NARAL Pro-Choice America 100% of the time - Voted with Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence 100% of the time - Voted with National Council of La Raza 100% of the time - Voted with the Sierra Club 96% of the time, which is more often than Obama does - Voted with the ACLU 50% of the time - National Education Association gave Kirk a grade of A+ - Citizens for Global Solutions gave Kirk a grade of B+
CONSERVATIVE GROUPS - Voted with Taxpayers for Common Sense 33% of the time - Voted with The Club for Growth 19% of the time (9 / 48 votes) , - Voted with Citizens for Tax Justice 17% of the time - Voted with The Family Research Council 12% of the time - Voted with American Family Association 0% of the time - Voted with GOPUSA 0% of the time - Voted with FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform) 0% of the time - NRA gave Kirk an “F” - Gun Owners of America gave Kirk a grade of “ F- “
Is this a trick question? At least they aren’t biased.
The Real question is "Who is the TOP Bone-Smoking-Rump-Ranger in the Democrat Party?"
That would be DICK DURBIN!!
He is also in the GerBiL’s pants big time.
And the funny thing is that the democrats will still attack him for not being liberal enough.
Kelly Osborne or Lady Gaga
He’s still ten times better than Durbin.
http://conservative.org/ratingsarchive/uscongress/2011/senate.html#IL
I’d trade Durban for a second Mark Kirk right now. Seriously, Ill-Annoy is America’s North Korea. Do you really think you can elect someone to the right of Mark Kirk here?
NOW you can read this reply and understand WHY Illinois GOP is so screwed up! We have people like 1010RD who will stand here and defend Senator Mark Kirk instead of admitting the truth, that he is really a Democrat Masquerading as a Republican............................
Question is: Who’s the top anti-gay bigot in the Illinois Republican Party?
Friday, May 31, 2013 4:27:03 PM · 8 of 8
1010RD to chicagolady
He’s still ten times better than Durbin.
http://conservative.org/ratingsarchive/uscongress/2011/senate.html#IL
I’d trade Durban for a second Mark Kirk right now. Seriously, Ill-Annoy is America’s North Korea. Do you really think you can elect someone to the right of Mark Kirk here?
I happen to think its well past time to start pushing back against the moderates in the GOP who think conservatives are extreme while their friends across the aisle are ALL extreme to a psychotic extent.
The thing is, it won’t matter how far left Mark Kirk or any other RINO goes, it will never be far enough for the democrats. All the democrats will ever accept are lockstep fascists of their own party and all the RINOs are doing is playing the role of Kapo and they will just be eliminated last.
Thanks chicagolady.
Chicagolady, I agree with you. While Sen. Kirk was my congressman, a few newspapers printed my letters to the editor, about Kirk. I said that his rating from Planned Parenthood was 100% and that his rating from Gun Owners of America was 0%. I said that he frequently voted for unconstitutional pork barrel spending. I said that a real Republican should oppose him, in a primary, but it didn’t happen, in his House races.
Basic courtesy on FR is to ping the person you’re talking about. Are you accussing me of being a CINO or just pro-Kirk?
It’s not clear from your rantpost. When was the last conservative elected statewide in Illinois?
This is the last state to get any form of concealed carry. Does that tell you anything?
Furthermore, my basis for saying that Mark Kirk is ten times better than Durbin is based on fact. Compare his numbers to Kirk’s from the ACU scoring website. You’ll see that Kirk is much better than a Democrat, at least vis a vis Durbin’s example.
Although I supported you, you’re in an absolute fantasy that you can elect a conservative statewide in Illinois. We can chip away at the edges, but this is America’s North Korea.
To win in Ill-Annoy, the Land of Illusion, you’ll have to compromise and create alliances. The numbers statewide don’t add up. We’ll have to take a page out of Madigan’s playbook and work coalitions on an issue by issue basis.
Then show me how you elect conservatives to statewide office in Illinois. Please use real districts and real election numbers.
The fact is you cannot do it. At best we'll get RINOs like Kirk, that said, Dan Rutherford is an improvement over Quinn. I think that Madigan will work with him. Madigan's more conservative than most people realize.
In the end, you just need the votes. Rutherford has pulled votes out of Chicago and among minorities. That's a big deal, if you want to win.
Peter Fitzgerald is a conservative who was elected to the U.S. Senate from Illinois. I lived in California, at that time, but I think that he proudly told people that he was pro-tax cuts, pro-spending cuts, and pro-life. He got 52% of the vote. Since he won, we should nominate conservatives for every statewide office, in 2014. In 2008, Dr. Sauerberg was moderate, and he lost. In 2006, then-Treasurer Topinka was moderate, and she lost.
When they're "reminded" about Fitzgerald and can't feign amnesia anymore, they'll resort to repeating the GOP establishment's history revisionism that Fitzgerald was a fluke who "couldn't have gotten elected again", instead of the reality at the time that Fitzgerald was very popular with rank and file Illinois voters, but the Topinka and Ray LaHood lead RINOs forced him to retire by threatening to "take him out" in the primary because he wasn't playing ball with their corrupt RINO criminal George Ryan.
Bottom line, Chicagolady is right: 1010RD is part of the problem here in Illinois, and one of the reasons liberals are out of control in this state. If we listened to 1010RD, we would have nominated "electable" Loleta Dickerson instead of Fitzgerald and we would have had a Olympia Snowe type Senator at best.
Hell, we would have had gay marriage in this state back during the December 2012 lame duck session, since the RINO wing of the party and the Kirkbots insisted at the time that it was a done deal and we should surrender to the Dems instead of "wasting" resources (what we learned yesterday is the RATs couldn't even muster the votes with a veto proof majority in BOTH houses AND resorting to attempting to bribe/blackmail black legislators in safe Dem districts who are against gay marriage).
Since we actually put up a fight instead of surrendering like the Dems/RINOs wanted us to, their "inevitable" gay marriage has gone nowhere for months and they've lost the momentum. Now they want to push it back to the November veto session, and good luck keeping those RINOs on board in November once they have primary challengers who file against him. Many sources think the Dems are now going to give up and try to make it an issue in the 2014 election. So much for the RINOs who wanted us to cave to our liberal overlords.
Nancyboy Kirk delenda est (MUST be destroyed, like Carthage the origonal).
First, conservatives MUST defeat Kirk in a primary.
Second, the "pragmatist" GOPsters, especially including Nancyboy, will protect their Machine Demonrat kissin' (or whatever) cousins by defeating the honest Republican who scrubs the stain of Nancyboy from the Senate and electing a Demonrat in his place.
Third, we get to hope that the Demonrat is as terminally stupid and corrupt as former Senator Carol Mostly Fraud.
Fourth, IF SO, the unprincipled phonies (Demonrats in GOP drag) who run the Illanoy GOP will get sexually (but perversely) excited over some slimeball like a Judy Baah Baah Toooopinka or some closeted faggot and similar social revolutionary, high taxer, gun grabber, baby-killer, and enemy of the concept of normal marriage (the kind that features only one man and one woman).
Fifth, the Demonrats may renominate the Carol Mostly Fraud corrupt-alike or beat him/her/it in a Demonrat primary with something worse and more competent like another Obozo.
Sixth, the GOP leadership Demonrats in GOP drag see to it that Tooostinka or whatever is their favored candidate is the ONLY Demonrat in GOP drag in the GOP primary and that at least five superficially capable conservatives (actual Republicans and normal Americans) are in the primary.
Seventh, the Demonrats in GOP drag appeal to the Demonrat Machine for turnout of "Republican" primary "voters" from their cemetery surplus, illegal alien supply, non-existent but registered voters, etc. After all, Illannoy's Machine enacted laws allow ANYONE to vote in GOP primaries.
Eighth, Voila!!! a new (or old) commie pervert gun-grabber Senator, posing as "the will of the sheeple!"
It's not that I am cynical or anything, you understand, but the state of Connecticut where I lived until a relatively few years ago suffered all this under Lowell P. Weicker, Jr. When last seen in Connecticut's faux "GOP," he was desperately trying to allow non-Republicans to vote in the GOP primaries (a proposal crushed at the state convention by a margin of about 2 to 1). When last seen in state politics (as an "Independent"), he was cramming a state income tax down the throats of the Connecticut taxpayers by buying, bullying or bribing every necessary vote in the legislature in order to relieve the dividends, interest and capital gains taxes that had long been levied against his polo-playing buddies and shifting the burden to the backs of teenagers flippin' burgers at Mickey D's.
Weicker, Nancyboy Kirk, "what difference does it make?" Two utterly useless gun grabbing, baby-killing, "gay" pervert agenda supporting, enemies of our way of life. Likewise, Ho Chi Nancyboy Kirk and Dickie Durbin. The difference between Illanoy now and Connecticut in 1988 is that we had Lieberman as a foreign policy conservative and as an alternative to the despicable Weicker.
Unless and until we have a state Republican Party worthy of the name, we are responsible for the Nancyboys, the Durbins, the Quinnochios, AND the Obozos produced here in Madiganistan aka Illanoy.
Do I think we can elect someone "to the right" of Ho Chi Kirk? As Sarah Palin would say: You betcha! When we have control of our party's nominating process and of its state central committee (by popular REPUBLICAN ONLY voting for both of same), and have nominated as many actual REPUBLICANS as the Demonrats in drag posing as Republicans have nominated over the years, then get back to me.
Finally: remember PETER FITZGERALD!!!
P.S. Is Dan Rutherford married? To a woman? What was his legislative track record on guns, marriage, babies, choice of "leaders," pensions, taxes on folks of modest means, and other issues of importance to the folks or moral conservatism and modest means? Has he EVER uttered a word in opposition to the Obozo regime and its policies? Or is Rutherford just another useless RINO and obstacle to conservatives (see Lyin' George Ryan,Jim Edgar, Big Jim Thompson, Upchuck Percy, Paul Findlay, Ray Lahood, etc.) I know I will NEVER vote for Kirk. Is Rutherford in the same boat?
Who should oppose Sen. Kirk, in the 2016 primary? I hope that Congressman Roskam will run.
Yes, Treasurer Rutherford is married to a woman. He’s pro-life and pro-gun rights.
Think for a second and let me inject some reality into your ramblings. We’d all like a full-blown conservative to run and win. As a matter of fact, I suspect that we’d like the state to be top to bottom conservative, but then there’s reality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Fitzgerald_(politician)#Political_career:
After a hard-fought primary victory against Illinois Comptroller Loleta Didrickson, in which the latter had the support of most national and state-level Republican leaders, Fitzgerald defeated first-term Democratic incumbent U.S. Senator Carol Moseley Braun in 1998, and served for one term in the U.S. Senate. He was the first Republican in Illinois to win a U.S. Senate race in 20 years, and the only Republican challenger in the country to defeat an incumbent Democratic senator in the 1998 election cycle. Even though Moseley Braun was dogged by negative publicity of corruption charges, Fitzgerald defeated her by only 2.9%.
Fitzgerald is a staunch conservative on some issues, such as being opposed to abortion (except to save the life of the mother), gun control, gay marriage and taxes, but on some issues, particularly environmental issues — he opposed drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge throughout his tenure in the US Senate — he broke with conservative colleagues.[citation needed] He was also notable as one of only a handful of GOP Senators to support the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform legislation.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So Fitzgerald barely won against the worst wounded Democrat to run in decades. Now, I love him and worked for his campaign, but he wouldn’t win again.
NB: “He was the first Republican in Illinois to win a U.S. Senate race in 20 years...[and] defeated her by only 2.9%.”
Fitzgeral also isn’t a Polly Purebread. He supported McCain-Feingold. Still, for all your bluster, show me how to seat conservatives and I’ll do it.
BTW, Dan Rutherford supported civil unions and doesn’t want SSM to define the IL GOP. Plus, he’s not married and never has been.
You can rantpost all you’d like, but you’re not going to declare victory that way.
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.