Posted on 04/16/2010 12:04:20 PM PDT by STARWISE
~~Oh, Raahmm ................. PING!
>> He spent a ton of cash to eke out a primary win. But 61% of Democrats wanted someone else to be the nominee.
??? How the heck does THAT happen ???
Maybe ‘Rats EVERYWHERE are too stupid to vote.
April 5, 2010
New poll: Kirk leads Giannoulias 37-33 — Rahm warming up in the bullpen?
###
Public Policy Polling has released its latest polling on the Kirk vs. Giannoulias race (see below). It shows Kirk leading 37-33 over the mob banker in his bid to be the next U.S. Senator from Illinois.
Given Alexi’s quick decline, one has to wonder if Rahmbo and the Democrats are starting to think about dumping yet another elected nominee, and replacing him with someone the machine Dems think will have a better chance.
See #4 .. he might be fizzling .. literally.
Giannoulias thinks his bank troubles won’t hurt him because of internal polling. When the bank gets taken over by the FDIC, expect that to change. Obama will “offer” him something to drop out, negotiating now...
FYI — royal treatment in the Emperor’s court
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Why does the IRS commissioner need bodyguards in order to go out to lunch?
By Tucker Carlson | Published: 04/12/10
###
How many Americans have ever heard of IRS commissioner Douglas Shulman? How many could pick him out of a lineup if their lives depended on it? Not one in a million, you say? Don’t tell Shulman, who believes himself to be so famous that he requires Mick Jagger-level personal protection.
Before Shulman sat down to eat in an upscale Washington restaurant last week, at least two members of his federal security detail checked the dining room for threats. They stayed with the virtually-anonymous-yet-apparently-gravely-imperiled commissioner throughout the meal.
And if you think that’s overkill, consider the security retinue that travels with Gen. James Jones, the national security adviser, when he eats in public. One local maitre’d counted no fewer than six bodyguards the other day. The group showed up more than an hour before Jones himself, and demanded that the retired Marine general be given a specific table.
Keep in mind that this took place in downtown Washington, D.C., during daylight hours, one of the safest, most cop-saturated places on Earth.
But for obnoxious, nothing beats the flamboyant power play Valerie Jarrett staged at Dulles Airport not long ago. Jarrett’s official job title is “assistant to the president for public engagement and intergovernmental affairs,” whatever that means, though her power derives from her friendship with Barack Obama.
And that’s also how she gets to the departure gate faster than the rest of us. Jarrett cruised through the airport at high speed with at least three members of a security detail, all paid for by tax dollars.
The line between government-issued bodyguard and manservant has always been thin in Washington, and never more so than now. By all accounts, the Obama administration has dramatically increased the number and scope of the security details that protect but mostly serve its appointees.
Has Washington become a dramatically more dangerous place to work? Of course not. But they can. So they did.
Couldn't read any farther than that.
Not no but hell no on Kirk, the most liberal candidate ever.
I will never vote for him.
Bring on the "but you'll be helping to elect the democrat", I don't give a rat's ass. They are both democrats.
What bothers me, is the fact that Kirk is a centrist. I just get the sinking feeling that all the moderate Democrats, that lost their party too the fringe, are moving over to the Republican side of the ledger. i.e. RINO’S.
Yeah ... Kirk’s a ‘centrist’ ..... ROFL!!!
In Chicago .. in the whole rottenly blue lib
corrupt, thug/union controlled state, he’s
considered a centrist.
It’s all relative.
That’s my point. The RINO disease in the Republican party is simply disaffected moderate Democrats.
This whole thing would be funny if it were not true.
Ahem, speaking of Independents, check out solid Reagan conservative Mike Niecestro. He’s got a giant war chest, agreat grassroots organization, and a few tricks up his sleeve that will really make the libs in this race sweat. This is going to be like NY23, only this time the good guys win (Lord willin’ and the creek don’t rise):
http://niecestroforsenate.com/
http://ThisIsYourCountry.net
Let me put it to you this way. What's the first vote any Freshman Senator casts?
Why, the one for Majority Leader of course. Now, who do you think Kirk will cast that vote for? If Reid goes down in flames as it seems he will, do you think Kirk will cast his vote for Durbin or for a Republican?
Believe me, I'm no Kirk fan. I worked to defeat him in the Primary and I'm very, very uncomfortable with the thought of him as 'our' candidate. In fact I'm pretty sure I'll throw up in my mouth a little when I vote for him.
But vote for him I will for that one single reason.
I implore you to do the same.
That happens when there are multiple candidates in the primary. Say there are 3 candidates in the primary. A, B and C get 35%, 34% and 31% of the vote respectively. A wins and get’s on the ballot. But 65% of the voters wanted someone else to win.
We live in the same district. Kirk often infuriates me. However, I will give him credit for changing his cap and trade vote after constituents (including yours truly) wrote some strong e-mails to his office. I would rather have a RINO who listens than a socialist who rams through the Marxist agenda. Some of the Freepers who would rather have a socialist in office than vote for a Libbie Republican have their heads up their nether regions.
>> A, B and C etc.
That actually makes sense; therefore I conclude that I need another beer.
Thanks
This article is dead wrong. Kirk has been running around the state for weeks, shouting about Broadway Bank from the rooftops. He's running incessant ads attacking Alexi. What's happened is Alexi's negatives have skyrocketed, yet the percentage of pro-Kirk voters hasn't changed. Just because people hate Alexi, it doesn't mean they're willing to drink Kirk's kool-aid. Kirk has the enormously fortunate luck of running against the most blatantly corrupt Democrat on the ballot and he's still only ahead within the margin of error (-/+ 5%). Meanwhile our "unelectable" conservative nominee for Governor is ahead of incumbent Governor Pat Quinn by double digits! Kirk sucks as a candidate and is yet more proof running as Dem-lite doens't make one more "electable".
>>> Alexi recently whined to an audience that Kirk is being mean by constantly bringing up the bank issues and that it is just Kirk’s way of avoiding the issues. He wants voters to believe that his experience, his qualifications and his character are off limits. True, his only hope appears to be a straight up debate over the candidates’ competing visions of doctrinaire liberalism versus center-right fiscal conservatism. <<
A stopped clock is right twice a day, and I hate to admit it but Alexi is right that Kirk is avoiding the issues like the plague. Kirk doesn't want to discuss his experience or character. He doesn't want to get into details about his record during the last 10 years in Congress because he's been on the wrong side of history with every major debate in this country. As usual, Kirk has nothing to offer voters because he agrees with everything Alexi is running on. Kirk has been about as "fiscally conservative" as Ahnuld in office and doesn't want voters to find out his message is a farce. The only "issue" Kirk is talking about at the moment is patting himself on the back for spending zillions to "protect lake Michigan", and promising to enshire Obama's executive order for taxpayer funding to destroy human embroys as permanant law. Nevermind that Alexi will do the exact same thing in Washington. Kirk thinks the messsage "Just as liberal as Alexi, but no Broadway Bank baggage!" is a winner. We'll see.
>>> he now calls Kirk’s moderate credentials “absolute farce.” <<
Alexi is right, for the wrong reasons. Kirk is no moderate, he's an abortion-loving, gun-grabbing, doctrine socialist. He is well to the left of many card-carrying DEMOCRAT officials in Illinois, such as my Lipinski-style state senator. The argument that some moonbats hate Kirk, therefore he must be a good guy, is the same argument used by freepers to re-elect socialist Joe Lieberman. Both are good little left-wing socialists, who happen to upset the insane moonbats sinply because they shook hands with George W. Bush once.
>> Why, the one for Majority Leader of course. Now, who do you think Kirk will cast that vote for? If Reid goes down in flames as it seems he will, do you think Kirk will cast his vote for Durbin or for a Republican? But vote for him I will for that one single reason. <<
Unless the Senate is split 50-50, Kirk's vote for majority leader accomplishes absolutely nothing. During the 0.5% of cases where the Senate is equally split between parties, there's no gurantee DIABLOs like Kirk will support "our side" just because they happen to have an "R" next to their name. Indeed, in the last decade alone, Arlen Specter and Jim Jeffords have proven the arguement that we "have to" elect a socialist "Republican" because they will vote for a GOP majority leader is false. DIABLOs could care less about helping the GOP, they will vote for whatever gives them the most power in Washington. To get a DIABLO like Kirk to caucus with the Dems, all they have to do is bribe him and offer him a better committee chairmanship than the GOP is willing to offer. Furthermore, the other 99.5% of the time when they're not voting for majority leader, Kirk will be voting with the Dems on most issues regardless of who he's caucusing with. Kirk will be FAR more influencial in swaying RINOs and moderate Dems to the dark side than Obama's crooked buddy will be. That's reason enough to oppose sending another Linc Chafee to the U.S. Senate for six years.
>> Kirk often infuriates me. However, I will give him credit for changing his cap and trade vote after constituents (including yours truly) wrote some strong e-mails to his office. I would rather have a RINO who listens than a socialist who rams through the Marxist agenda. <<
Kirk only changed his cap n' treason position because he was running in a contested GOP primary for the first time in a decade and he was afraid a real Republican could beat him. Kirk's faux "Republican" actions over the past few months were solely to win that primary. He has NO intention of actually following thur on any of those promises (note that the Kirk supporters rolled their eyes during the primary when I said Kirk was just posturing when he claimed to adamantly against Obamacare and dedicated to repealing it. Yet now that the primary's over Kirk has indeed dropped his "pledge" to repeal it and says he regrets making such a pledge! Amazing!) Aside from Kirk's primary campaign from Sept. 2009 - Feb. 2010, can you think of a SINGLE time during his entire congressional career that Kirk listened to Republican constituents and backed away from his initial support of Democrat legislation? I doubt it. The ONLY time Kirk ever votes "with us" (Bush tax cuts, war on terror, anti-Obamacare), etc., is when the polls show it would personally benefit him to vote that way. Otherwise the only people Kirk listens to are lefitsts, like when Mark Kirk betrayed us on Iraq and voted AGAINST the surge.
>> Some of the Freepers who would rather have a socialist in office <<
Mark Kirk IS a socialist, not a "moderate" Republican. Even John McCain and Lindsey Graham vote conservative twice as often as Kirk. He is WELL to the left of a squishy center-right Republican like Mike DeWine or Norm Coleman, and even well to the left of a middle-of-the-road centrist like Scott Brown. If Kirk really wants to win over independents, find common ground on an issue, and appeal to the middle, why is Kirk such a gung-ho doctrine leftist on issues like abortion? Over 70% of voters oppose partial birth abortion, but Kirk is for it and gloats about voting with NARAL 100% of the time. He's certainly not taking those stances to be more "electable" or get people with differing views on the issue to support him. Since Kirk normally loves to pander to whatever the popular position is, one has to wonder why he'd hurt his own election chances by being so extreme on abortion and absolutely refuses to budge on the issue and moderate his views. The only logical explanation is Kirk genuinely believes in the cause of abortion-on-demand and will fight for it. And we're supposed to believe this commie will stand up against Marxist judges and be a dependable vote for keeping Conservatives in power? Please. Mark Kirk has made it clear he despises conservatives and does everything possible to alienate "his" party. He believes doing the bidding of NARAL, the ACLU, and the Sierra Club will make "moderates" and 'independents" love him, so be it. Let's test that theory. Kirk is a backstabbing scumbag and deserves to go down in flames.
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.