Brown in Illinois to raise Senate money for Kirk (RINO ALERT)

The Chicago Tribune ^ | 2010-08-27 | John Chase

[Lando Lincoln]

The concept of the Senate majority is missed by some, it seems to me. I do not like our choice here in Illinois. But, as Yoda would say... choose we must. I will go with the F who has the R next to his name.

[rbmillerjr]

We have some real “deadenders” who claim to be conservative but work against conservatism all the time. You are absolutely correct about Kirk, he’s a RINO.

But he did vote right on the major tax issues of the day and he gives us a Senate seat. We will have to win one of either Illinois or Florida to have a shot.

Of course the deadenders want make it easier for the Obama agenda to be carried out.

[1rudeboy]

42 replies and no one has run crying to one of the Admin Mods (yet).
:)

[BillyBoy]

>> The concept of the Senate majority is missed by some, it seems to me. <<

Indeed it is. They have amnesia about what happens when you "count on" DIABLOs to give us a majority.

"Hey the Senate is split 50-50 and the Democrats are actively working to recruit Republicans to cross over. But not to worry, REPUBLICAN SENATOR JIM JEFFORDS is on our side! Isn't that right, Jim... Jim... hey, where you goin' buddy?"

[BillyBoy]

>> “Mark Kirk voted for the 2001 and 2003 tax relief packages and supports making this tax relief permanent. Last year, Congressman Kirk voted against a budget plan to raise taxes by $1.5 trillion and triple the debt over the next 10 years (S.Con.Res 13). The year before, Congressman Kirk voted against a plan to raise taxes by at least $683 billion over the next five years (S.Con.Res. 70) and a proposal to raise the 10-percent tax rate bracket to 15 percent, re-impose the marriage penalty, cut the child tax credit in half, and raise taxes on seniors, working families and small businesses (H.Con.Res. 312). Mark Kirk believes we should permanently repeal the death tax and marriage penalty, double the child tax credit and cut the capital gains tax.” <<

Guess what, rbmillerjr? So did Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-SD). She voted like Kirk on all the above issues you mentioned (keep 2001 & 2003 tax cuts, double the child tax credit, etc.), plus she voted with the Republicans on monitoring TARP funds, putting her to the right of Mark Kirk on that issue.

Since you find Kirk's record acceptable, I guess you'll have no problem endorsing Sandlin (D) for re-election? She supported us on a few tax bills. The fact she votes with Obama the OTHER 80% of the time is irrelevant, right? She's liberal, but NOT as liberal as a Pelosi Democrat. If it's OK for Kirk to be liberal and vote that way, you should have no qualms about the two dozen or so RATs in Congress who USUALLY vote liberal but OCCASIONALLY support us on a couple of tax bills. And since we're on the subject of "loyally" to helping the Republicans win Congress and Kirk's record on taxes, never forget...

Kirk Offered to Endorse a Chicago Machine Democrat for Congress

Kirk Helped Pelosi Democrats Pass the Largest Tax Increase in American History

This man isn't a RINO, he is a...

Democrat In All But Label Only

[rbmillerjr]

Yeah, but the problem with your logic is that you are not considering the entire equation, meaning the Chicago machine Dem.

If he wins, he is lock stock and barrel helping Obama and his Socialist Leftist agenda.

[dirtboy]

Some posters are postulating about what **might** happen in regards to a pubbie changing parties - whereas if the Dems stay in control of Congress, we know what **WILL** happen - two more years of an economy-killing, national security-endangering agenda.

[BillyBoy]

Some posters are postulating about what might happen in the short term if the headlines read "REPUBLICAN WINS OBAMA'S SENATE SEAT"

The rest of us are postulating about what WILL happen over the next SIX years if the media has another Jeffords/Chafee/Specter type "Republican" to put a "bipartisan" cover on the Democrats socialist agenda, regardless of who's President or in Congress during that time.

We know from history that having a "Republican" give a seal of approval to socialism will be far more useful to the Dems than having a tainted Chicago machine Dem around who holds the same positions. Perhaps that explains why left-wing loons like Jesse Jackson Jr. & Bobby Rush (not to mention all the Chicago media in the tank for Obama) seem quite enamored with the possibility of a "Republican" winning this seat instead of "their" candidate.

[dirtboy]

We know from history that having a "Republican" give a seal of approval to socialism will be far more useful to the Dems than having a tainted Chicago machine Dem around who holds the same positions.

Yeah, we all know that socialism has moved at a much slower pace ever since the Dems have taken control. /incredulous sarcasm mode

Do you really expect anyone to believe that bullcrap?

[BillyBoy]

Apparently you're having trouble reading, dirtboy. I said that a DIABLO will be far more helpful to the RATs cause than a tainted Chicago Machine Dem will. I didn't say Republicans as a whole are better at passing socialism than Democrats. Indeed, in the vast majority of Senate races (90%+), it's much better to have a Republican in the Senate.

History has shown us that Kirk-style DIABLOs do far more damage than the typical RATs they defeat, though. One of the best examples being Linc Chafee representing Rhode Island instead of Bob Weygand.

Do I think Kirk will be worse than the Chicago machine RAT in there now? Absolutely. Name one piece of socialist legislation that wouldn't have passed if it weren't for Roland Burris lending his support. You can't. He is a tainted lame duck and has zero clout in Washington. But I can name half a dozen pieces of marxist garbage that got thur thanks to "Republican" Mark Kirk pimping for them.

[dirtboy]

You are as full of crap as ever. Electoral math is simple this time of year. Contemplate the number 51 and tell us if having that number of GOP senators is better or worse for this country and having that number or more of Dem senators.

You can dissemble all you want, but all of your bullsh** is just that.

[BillyBoy]

Apprently you're the one with math problems, dirtboy.

Remember when we "had to" re-elect REPUBLICAN Arlen Specter to "stop" the Democrats?

Remember when Specter GAVE the Democrats a 60-SEAT VETO PROOF MAJORITY?

So how did that slow down socialism and stop the RATs?

You can post all the bullcr@p you want to. The facts speak for themselves.

[BillyBoy]

Must be nice living in your little fantasy world. In your universe the Democrats NEVER took control of the Senate in 2001 thanks to good ol' REPUBLICAN Senator Jim Jeffords ENSURING we had 51 seat and would stop the Dems. And in the universe you come from, Arlen Specter was instrumental in "stopping" the Democrats in 2006 too. In your world things are very simple. ANYONE with an "R" next to their name in the Senate votes ALWAYS with their party when their vote is needed to "stop the Democrats" from passing socialism, therefore we can ensure liberal legislation will never get passed solely on the basis of outnumbering Democrats on paper.

Unfortunately for you, we live in the real world where people like Mark Kirk only deliver for the left, and have a 10 year record proving they ALWAYS side with the left when the Congress is tied and their vote is "needed", and THAT's why the Obama loving mainstream media loves them so much. They love reporting that the latest socialist scheme has "Republican" approval.

And we have to vote for candidates based on what happens in the REAL world, not your fantasyland where every single "R" candidate is a good loyal anti-Obama vote. And the liberal Obama-loving media (who continues to support Obama's agenda) is in the tank for Kirk, NOT Alexi. Why do you think that is?

[dirtboy]

So you are going off of what COULD happen. Versus me going off of what has happened - the disaster that has been the last two years of this country under Dem control. Maybe a pubbie will pull a Jeffords in 2011. Maybe not. We don't know. However, I can guarantee that the Dem job-killing agenda will continue without a GOP majority in Congress to block it. And that is the OBVIOUS point you are unwilling to grasp.

I'd rather have a better pubbie than Kirk in Illinois. But he is the nominee now. I'd rather Hayworth would have won in Arizona. But he didn't. Life sucks sometimes. But it sucks a lot worse with the Dems in charge.

[BillyBoy]

Thank GOODNESS a REPUBLICAN won California!!! Things are soooooo much better now that a REPUBLICAN is in charge!!! Too bad the right-wing wackos on this board can't see it. Isn't it amazing a REPUBLICAN took a seat previously held by one of the nation's leading DEMOCRATS? Now the Democrats are running scared!!! We have them on the ropes.

Can you believe it -- 68% of this state voted for a REPUBLICAN!! We're gonna have a GOP majority in no time thanks to AHNULD!! Ahnuld may be a liberal but he's NOT Gray Davis. Our economy is now saved with a FISCAL CONSERVATIVE taking charge. He'll STOP all the endless tax and spend bills. He'll STOP activist judges. He'll STOP hordes of illegal aliens. He'll kick butt and take names. California is IN PLAY for the GOP in 2004 and 2008!!!

Yessir, things are looking up now. What a morale boost on election night, to defeat the Democrat machine. I was so tired of losing. At least we didn't listen to the Ahnuld haters who wanted to hand this seat to a Dem. We'll look back on this moment so proudly six years from now and smile that, for once, OUR side WON a major statewide office. What could go wrong? In 2010, we'll thank GOD everyday that we have a REPUBLICAN sitting in the chair instead of Dem.

Can you believe the right-wing purist @sswipes would prefer GRAY DAVIS, and have us believe there's NO difference between Arnold and a Democrat, and -- THEY ACTUALLY CLAIM -- that this state will be even MORE bankrupt and overrun with socialism in 2010?!?!? What bulls--t. That will never, EVER happen.

[dirtboy]

You are sooo full of crap, you know it?

Wow, sometime we get bad pubbies. That means we should leave government to the Democrats who are doing such a wonderful job running this country.

You're an idiot. There is no other way to put it. But you've always been full of it. You shilled for RINO Tommy Thompson in 2008, and now have the temerity to lecture other Freepers about RINOs? BWAHAHAHAHA!

[BillyBoy]

>> So you are going off of what COULD happen. <<

No, I'm going off on what DID happen. Kirk's been in office for a decade. I don't have to speculate on how Kirk will vote. I already KNOW how he votes. Kirk's no fiscal conservative, Kirk's no "thoughtful" Republican, and Kirk is no anti-Washington reformer. He claims to be all those things and his record shows the opposite. The only full of bulls--t is Kirk and his shameless supporters here.

Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama have indeed passed endless socialist garbage over the past four years, and Kirk has been championing most of it every step of the way. It doesn't matter what he claims to get elected. In 2006, he told Republicans they "had to" re-elect him to Congress because he supported the WOT and a Democrat wouldn't. They he turned around and stabbed Bush in the back, demanding we get out of Iraq and leading the fight AGAINST the surge. Kirk has no shame.

I don't think, I KNOW Kirk is a worthless backstabbing left-wing turd. If you want to support the worthless backstabbing socialist turd because you THINK he MIGHT support a Republican Senate Majority Leader if it came down a 50-50 split, that's your buisness.

His track record shows otherwise.

[mac_truck]

Turn the bold/caps off dufus. You’re not that bright or funny.