Posted on 08/28/2009 3:46:27 PM PDT by rabscuttle385
U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk will land the high-profile endorsement of Sen. John McCain in his early Republican bid for Senate at a suburban event on Sunday.
The former GOP presidential candidate from Arizona is set to hold a news conference with Kirk in Glenview and then a fundraiser expected to bring in half a million dollars, according to Kirk's campaign office.
The endorsement comes early in the GOP primary. Petitions to get on the ballot won't even be filed until November. But Kirk has locked in praise early from key Republican leaders who hope to propel the North Shore representative out of the primary without much of a battle.
Other GOP contenders include Hinsdale real estate developer Patrick Hughes, Internet commentator Andy Martin, former Harvey alderman John Harrington and retired downstate judge John Lowery.
On the Democratic side, Illinois Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias, former Chicago Inspector General David Hoffman and Chicago Urban League CEO Cheryle Jackson are among those vying to lead the ticket for the seat formerly held by President Barack Obama.
.
.
I hope Kirk loses. It’s not worth an ‘R’ seat to have another Lincoln Chaffee.
Mccain, Spector, NO DIFFERENCE, SHUT UP AND SIT DOWN! He still wants to work with these socialists.
Haven’t got much use for Kirk (head up his posterior on “global warming”, as an example) - but, this is Illinois. We tried running Keyes - and got Yomama.
Kirk is marginally better than your standard RINO, and for a state generally represented by the likes of Durbin, Obama, Carol Moselely Braun, Paul Simon, Roland Buriss, etc., he’d at least be a minimal improvement.
Really miss Fitzgerald, though.
You and me both, brother. Hey folks, we got Rollie-the-Boo as our senator! We had “Elvis” as our Governor! Give us a break, a RINO like Kirk may be the best we can do in IL and it’s a hell of a lot better than just letting the Donks walk away with another Dickie Dirtbag or Al Franken in that Senate seat.
I wouldn’t want a sputtering loser like Juan McCain endorsing me, but then I am not a republicrat...
Hoorah.
is mc cain commie?
If you think a conservative candidate can get elected in IL, then you don’t have a clue. Some states will not elect conservatives and that’s a fact whether I like it or not. The difference is that I know we cannot get s staunch conservative elected in IL. We are lucky to get a Republican.
That’s the problem with some conservatives that believe the party has to be pure. All it has done is handed some seats to the Dems in places we should have had a Republican. If I am from Oklahoma and can see it, so should everyone else.
All this bashing of Republicans and their candidates especially in very blue states makes me wonder what is up. We need control back and a lot less then 60 Dems in the Senate and if Kirk can help, welcome aboard. This idea of some conservatives to throw other people out is ludicrous. I am tired of the my way or no way I see day after day and the barbs thrown at Republican candidates because they don’t meet someone’s standards. That helped lose seats in the last two elections and give us the most liberal Congress ever.
Think some on here post article so they can bash Republicans. A lot of us have noticed there is a definite agenda in play on here and sooner or later we will have the complete answer to the rest of the puzzle.
yup, one giant puzzle indeed...
—
Anybody that will work continue to work with the enemy within Congre$$ can hardly be called more of what we should accept jmo. .. but I understand your comments regarding a little is better than none.
It’s up to the voters of Illinois. The ones with voice and (the dead) vote, that is. losing out here is a scrub, imo.
As to a ring of postings to attack Republicans.. nothing new.. I see little in the pool of the few remaining moderates that respect their constituents anymore so now than 2 years ago regardless what polls might suggest.
Even as the healthcare debate rages, the GoP is ready to do something and wants some package less costly passed if possible. Every voter just loves to hear their guy say I voted for health care reform because it is the right thing to do.
Florida will be another interesting primary scenario that will help define the New Re-Invigorated GoP and the candidates it chooses to support and who it leaves swinging in the wind.
Rubio ain’t perfect but he ain’t Crist either. That’s a big plus. Wish we had Rubio here in California instead of boxer and fiorina being annointed for the next California Senate seat. We have a decent candidate, Chuck DeVore, that the party will do little to promote after he wins a primary over fiorina. I look forward to chuck and carlye debating and then whoever has to square off against boxer, let it rip!
What good is it to have Republicans if they’re going to turncoat and vote with the Democrats?
Snowe?
Collins?
McCain?
Graham?
Pawlenty?
What they do is MUCH more damage than a Democrat in that seat can do and it has nothing to do with intellectual purity. It has to do with two letters P-R.
These Republicans are a cancer in our party because they are beloved by the media - who chose both of the 2008 presidential candidates. The lionshare of the populace vote only on presidential election years. When the media can report that something is “bi-partisian” because 1-3 Republican statists vote with their fellow socialists, the average person swallows it whole and thinks all is OK.
These statist, RINO, socialist Republicans need to be singled-out, ostracized, and shamed for their self-serving opportunistic ways.
And don’t give me that Reagan 11th Commandment nonsense, I’d like to remind you that Ronald Wilson Reagan was the last Republican in over 5 decades to run against a sitting Republican president in the primaries. He defeated Gerald Ford then and if we work hard and pray we can defeat the McCains, Snowes, Collins, Pawlentys, and Gerald Fords of our time - regardless of what state they are in.
PhiKapMom, Your form of political reality is defeatist.
Actually, PhiKapMom, you don't have a clue. If you knew anything about IL politics, you'd know we had a conservative U.S. Senator representing Illinois as recently as five years ago (Peter Fitzgerald, who had a 91% lifetime ACU rating). Fortunately we didn't listen to your crowd screeching "unelectable!! too right-wing to win in Illinois!!" when we choose him over the "electable" RINO hack in the 1998 primary.
We also tried running "electable" RINOs the past two election cycles in Illinois -- Judy Barr Topinka for Governor and Steve Sauerberg for the U.S. Senate, and they actually did WORSE than Keyes. So much for the "RINOs are more electable in states like Illinois" myth.
>> Kirk is marginally better than your standard RINO <<
Which RINOs would that be? According to half a dozen different conservative organization, he's far WORSE than the "standard RINO" people are screaming about like Charlie Crist. I don't see any of those other guys supporting partial birth abortion or cap-and-trade like Kirk. Kirk's voting record has placed him as the first or second worst Republican in the ENTIRE Congress.
>> for a state generally represented by the likes of Durbin, Obama, Carol Moselely Braun, Paul Simon, Roland Buriss, etc., he’d at least be a minimal improvement. <<
How would Kirk be an improvement over Burris (the current person representing that seat)? I'd be willing to bet real money that Kirk is far more effective at getting the key items of Obama's agenda passed than Burris. Nobody cares what Burris has to say.
>> Really miss Fitzgerald, though. <<
Who's this Fitzgerald guy? According to the "only RINOs can win" crowd here, a conservative will never get elected in Illinois, so if this Fitzgerald fellow was remotely to the right of Hillary he could have never held office in Illinois.
F McCain, who is Sarah supporting?
Having lost Chuckie Hagel, McCain is in search of a new lapdog.
Peter Fitzgerald’s victory in 1998 was a fluke, IMO. He won in an off year election with low turnout. He was a self-funding candidate who spent almost $15 million of his own money to win 50.35% of the vote. Oh, and it also helped that he was facing a black liberal woman who was involved in multiple controversies and scandals. There is a reason he didn’t run in 2004. He knew he would lose and he didn’t want to blow more of his personal fortune. I view Illinois, like Michigan and Pennsylvania, as a lost cause. Too many Democrat votes in, around, and under Chicago and the metropolitan area wipes out of the votes in the rest of the state. The same holds true to a large extent with Detroit and Philly.
Agree with you on Topinka; didn’t really consider Sauerberg a serious candidate.
Again, I’m not crazy about Kirk, but he’d be better than the RINO clowns we have in the Senate from Maine (not much of a standard, I’ll admit), and I certainly don’t want the Daley crowd having another vote in Washington.
But bottom line - if you had to pick the candidate, who would you have run?
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.