Posted on 08/28/2009 3:10:26 PM PDT by rabscuttle385
Below, release from Kirk....
McCain to Endorse Kirk at Veterans Gathering in Glenview
McCain: "The people of Illinois deserve a Senator who will restore honest government, strengthen our national security, fight for veterans and bring fiscal discipline to Washington. Mark Kirk has my strongest endorsement."
Who: Congressman Mark Kirk Senator John McCain
When: 4:00 p.m. Sunday, Aug. 30
Where: Glenview Park Center, Lakeview A Room 2400 Chestnut Ave. Glenview, IL
What: Senator John McCain will endorse Congressman Mark Kirk for U.S. Senate at a veterans gathering in Glenview on Sunday afternoon. Kirk, an early supporter of McCain's presidential bid during the 2008 primary election, will stress his commitment to fiscal discipline, national security, and veterans care.
Kirk and McCain, both Navy veterans, developed a close relationship in 2000 when the Senator twice came to Chicago to stump for then-candidate Kirk in one of the nation's most competitive open seat congressional elections. In 2001, Kirk backed McCain's campaign finance reform legislation, and Kirk remains the only member of the House Appropriations Committee to swear off earmark spending projects - an issue long championed by McCain. The two have also travelled together to Afghanistan and Iraq.
Following the veterans meeting, McCain will headline a North Shore fundraiser expected to raise nearly half a million dollars for Kirk's Senate bid.
###
I suppose you’d rather have a democrat win? I stand by what I said, if Kirk is the best we can do in a very Blue State then so be it, he has my full support.
I’d prefer a conservative like Peter Fitzgerald, but at the end of the day I want to see an “R” own that seat instead of a “d.”
Excuse me. He’s a Democrat. Just because he’s running as the Combiner annointed selection of the “R” wing doesn’t make him a Republican. He’s not. He’s a liberal Democrat who will likely make that official if he wins the November 2010 runoff between himself and the Combiner-annointed rodent (probably Alexi Giannoulias).
Dr. Eric Wallace is the REPUBLICAN in the race:
http://www.wallaceforillinois.com/
Call him what you want, but he’s a Repub in a very Blue State. I wish Peter Fitzgerald would run again, he’s a real true conservative, but as I said earlier, I’d rather have an “R” own that seat than a “d.”.
Based on his voting record, Kirk is a defacto Democrat. I don’t care what party label he tosses next to his name on the ballot, in reality electing him results in Harry Reid’s 61st vote. On every major issue conservatives care about — abortion, guns, traditional families, reducing government, cutting spending, the WOT, immigration, energy independence, etc., Kirk is on the wrong side. Moose, if Kirk is acceptable you might as well endorse Robert Byrd for the U.S. Senate because Byrd is probably better on major issues (immigration, cap-n-trade, etc.) than Kirk is. Kirk is so liberal than I located over a dozen card-carrying DEMOCRAT legislators in Illinois who got higher “conservative” ratings than Kirk last year.
More liberal than Democrats?
LOLOLOLOL.
That's really sad, if Freepers are willing to endorse a candidate who's more liberal than the Democrats around him, simply because of the letter following the candidate's name.
The United Republican Fund of Illinois is the state equivalent of the ACU, it rates candidates overall on how often they adhere to conservative values. Two rural southern Illinois Democrat state legislators scored the best of all the Dems, with a score of 67.5% conservative last year. Kirk got a 40%.
Now that’s just wrong.
And when I say wrong...I mean, messed up.
McCain is a worthless piece of crap. He has always been a worthless piece of crap.
If there are conservatives running in the primary then go out and elect one.
Otherwise, I want people to quit whining. Just go out and win.
WHINING IS NOT A CONSERVATIVE VALUE. In fact, it is what most liberals do when they lose.
For future reference, here’s my original post where I refutted the “Kirk may be a RINO, but he’s better than any Illinois Democrat” talking point. First you have to remember that many of those rural areas in southern Illinois are geographically south of Richmond. Both the Dems and the pubbies have A ratings from the NRA down there. Also over in my neck of the woods in the southwest Chicago suburbs, all the Dems tend to social conservatives as well and my Dem State Senator is solidly anti-handouts for illegals as well. Not only did over a dozen Illinois RAT legislators score better than Kirk last year, but I even found one who represents much of the same constiuency as Kirk (except the Dem’s district is more liberal because it contains suburbs like evanston), State Senator Jeff Schoenberg, a Jewish Democrat from northern Chicago with a 50% conservative rating when Kirk himself scored a 40%. So much “that’s the best we can get out there”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2298073/posts?page=46#46
I understand your point, I do, and I have two questions for you. Would you rather Barbara Boxer be re-elected in 2010 because her Repub opponent is a moderate and not a conservative? Could you support a RINO like Tom Campbell if he could defeat her? By the way, I checked out Dr. Eric Wallace’s campaign site, I was impressed, he could be a powerful voice against Obamacare. Is his fundraising going well? How is he doing in the primary polls to date?
Liberal scum supports liberal scum.
Come on, AZ... get rid of McCain!
“Just go out and win.”
If, by winning, you elect the enemy, then what have you won?
Kirk is scum. He is beneath scum. There’s not a liberal agenda or plan he doesn’t support. Him “winning” is a LOSS!
As to the broader point, whenever there's an ACTUAL "moderate" Republican running against a liberal Democrat, I almost always support the moderate Republican if they have a decent chance of winning. A real moderate Republican is someone who is not as conservative as I am, but is clearly to the right of the Democrat. Usually a squishy type who votes conservative somewhere around 60-75% of the time. For example I strongly supported Norm Coleman for Senate, Mike DeWine for Senate, (not to mention McCain for President) and other such moderates.
On the other hand, I will NOT support a LIBERAL Republican running against an equally liberal Democrat. Norm Coleman is a MODERATE Republican, and there's clear differences between him and the Dem -- I can name at least a dozen issues where he was on the opposite side of the Dem. Mark Kirk is a LIBERAL Republican, and during his very first campaign for Congress he simply agreed with his RAT opponent on every major issue. Check the transcripts of the 2000 Kirk-Gash debate if you don't believe me -- they gave up trying to find an actual issue to "debate" and finally decided to argue over who had better roots in the district. Many of Kirk's views are far-left fringe beliefs that no "moderate" or "middle of the road" person would be caught dead supporting. For example Kirk got a 100% rating from NARAL and Planned Parenthood, even supporting partial birth abortion and opposing parental notification for minors going across state lines for abortion. The media falsely claims Kirk is a "social moderate". I have yet to meet any "moderate" voters -- even mildly pro-choice ones -- who justify third trimester infanticide like Kirk. I refuse to believe he "has" to take those positions to win over "middle of the road" voters. A real "social moderate" on abortion would vote with Planned Parenthood 50% of the time, not 100%
So in the case of liberal vs. liberal, no, I'm not going to vote for one of the liberals simply because they have an "R" next to their name on the ballot, sorry. At least the Dem is being honest about their agenda. Kirk can wear a "Republican" label just like I can stamp the word "meat product" on a bundle of carrots, that doesn't make it true. Between the bundle of carrots labeled "vegetable" and the one labeled "meat", it's clear which one is being presently truthfully to the public.
If you disagree, can you tell me what advantage we gained from having people like Jeffords, Chafee, and Specter in the Senate? Everytime the Senate was divided 50-50 and we "needed" those "Republicans", they'd cast their lot with the Dems. Chafee was replaced with a Democrat in 2006, did anyone notice a difference in Rhode Island's votes? No, because the Dem agreed with Chafee on every issue.
As to Dr. Eric Wallace, glad you like the website. Certainly he's not a top-tier candidate, but I certainly think he'd at least be a credible opponent against a Democrat in November, and his credentials for the job are far better than the "electable" RINO hack the state party put up last time in Illinois (clueless family phyiscian Steve Sauerberg, who got steamrolled by Dick Durbin). His fund-raising is going well, and he's bringing in some big names nationally in the coming months -- Ken Blackwell and Herman Cain -- to stump for him. But the primary will be Feb. so it's a long way off. As to how he's polling in hypothetical match-ups, I wish I knew, but see the liberal media here has a love affair with Kirk and ignores any other Republican who runs for the Senate. They'd have us believe Kirk is the only Republican in the race. He's second only to Obama in fawning coverage from the Illinois media.
If Carly Fiorina gets the nomination in CA (by the way, she is not a “moderate” - a “moderate” is a Republican who votes Conservative at least about 75% of the time, someone who is less than 50% is a plain outright liberal - and some, like ex-Sen. Chafee of RI was a 90% leftist-Stalinist), over Conservative Republican Chuck DeVore, I hold the same position on her as I do with ALL leftists that get the “R” nomination and vote for Democrat policy - they will not now or EVER get my support.
If you’re going to elect a Socialist, you vote for the Democrat, not the R-Democrat (Kirk/Fiorina, et al). Let the Democrats OWN their failed policies that bankrupt America and make us less free, and not have RINOs who are Trojan Horse Democrats giving the Democrat party cover for their abominable agenda and harming our party with a phony “bipartisan” veneer.
(P.S. Tom Campbell, another leftist, is running for Governor, not Senator, and I similarly oppose him and the two other left-wingers running under our party label, for which they have nothing in common with).
Heh. We were writing our responses simultaneously... ;-)
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.