Posted on 10/07/2010 8:49:15 PM PDT by Inyokern
Mike Castle and Lisa Murkowski were knocked off in PRIMARIES. Do you understand the difference between a primary and a general election? There was primary in Illinois and nobody came close to beating Kirk. There was a conservative in the race (I no longer remember his name) and he even ran TV commercials but he was a doofus and he got about 3 votes.
The primary is over now. Now we are in the general. I would rather see a 60% conservative like Kirk get elected than a zero percent conservative like Giannoulias.
Giannoulias is a personal friend (butt boy) of Obama's. He is one of the few Democrats who actually wants Obama to campaign for him. How could you possibly want a guy like that to win?
Will Kirk be supportive of all things YOU consider important? No.
Will The Greek be supportive of ANY things you consider important? No.
Clearly the second choice is sooo much better.
I prefer the 50% disaster the the 100% disaster.
If the Greek gets in it will be for the next 24 yrs.
I prefer the 50% disaster to the 100% disaster.
If the Greek gets in it will be for the next 24 yrs.
Nope. You have it backwards.
The last two Chicago machine goons in that seat (Obama, Burris) sure didn't stick around for more than two years. Giannoulias doesn't show any signs of having any long term staying power, either. He's hardly a political dynasty like the Madigans or Daley's. He was only elected State Treasurer in 2006 because he was "rock star" Obama's best pal at the time and the GOP imploded that year; and if he wins this year he will have lucked out by the skin of his teeth only because his "Republican" opponent is so terrible. Alexi has a very high dissapproval rating in Illinois and is damaged goods after his family bank was seized by the government and everyone around him got indicted. As the bank's senior loan officer, there's a very good chance he'll get indicted as well. There's a slim chance he'll survive a six year term, but I'd be shocked if he lasted decades. In any case, if Alexi wins and serves out his term, the GOP will start over again with a new face to oppose him in six years. We'd stand a good chance of running a conservative the next time, or one would be appointed by Governor Brady if Alexi gets indicted.
Kirk, on the other hand, will probably end up like another Specter or Weicker and stick around for decades. This guy has already been a Congressman for a decade and part of the beltway crowd for years earlier, dating back to 1990 or so. He is the ultimate entrenched Washington insider and he sucks up to whoever is in power at the time so he gains favors. Once these RINO scumbags get control of a statewide office, it's almost impossible to defeat them in a primary. Kirk made sure the state party "cleared the field" of any big name opposition in this year's primary, and that the event was rigged where he wouldn't have to debate his opponents or discuss his actual record with GOP voters. The state party endorsed him from the moment he announced and made it clear Kirk WILL BE the nominee whether we like it or not. If we couldn't defeat him in this year's primary, it'll be virtually impossible to defeat him as a sitting Senator in the 2016 primary. We won't get to run a decent Republican until Kirk retires or switches parties. That seat will probably be DIABLO held for decades to come, long after people remember how Kirk won it in the first place because of an obscure pledge about a lameduck session during the 1-term Obama era.
And indeed, Kirk isn't a 50% disaster, he is 100% disaster. I know many Democrats that I can't stand to have in office and yet their record isn't as liberal as Kirk. Both are unacceptable. If his policies were only disastrous 50% of the time, then I'd approve of how he votes half the time. I don't. In fact, I can't think of a single policy Kirk has pushed for since winning the primary that I agree with (and promising something when his voting record shows the opposite doesn't count)
BTW, what's with your dramatic reference to Alexi as "The Greek". Most people just use the nickname "The Mob Banker". You don't refer to Kirk as "The Irishman". Do you dislike Greek-Americans or something?
I don’t have it backwards at all. The history shows clearly that RAT Senators are very hard to dislodge once they sink their teeth into the Senate seat. Republicans rarely serve for long. If Kirk turns out to be unacceptable it will be much easier to get him out. We haven’t had a Senator serve for more than a term since Chuck Percy.
Giannoulias is very unlikely to get indicted in spite of your hopes and dreams.
There is no choice but Kirk or this weasel. In Politics like football you have to advance the ball a little at a time on occasions. Hitting the Machine is critical to those concerned about victory.
Arrogant sob just sees things differently from the way things are seen by thee and me. Arrogant sob likes to back ideological disasters so long as he can view them as the lesser evil without a care for long-term results or the gelding of the Illinois GOP. Strategic thinking is beyond their ken. "Me want results now" and the future be damned is, of course, not a political strategy. Actual thinking beyond 11/2/10 is not allowed.
There are two usual reasons for people to bother with matters political and they tend to be mutually exclusive. Reason #1 is an insatiable desire and passion for jobs, money and contracts which defines Illinois Combine "Republicans" and their tribe and their enablers. Reason #2 is to hold a set of principles, to hold them firmly and knowledgeably, and to act in a principled fashion so as to translate one's ideals into political reality. Reason #2 is a respectable reason as Reason #1 is not.
Even if slavery is unacceptable, tariffs might be a good idea at this point.
You may recall Lieberman's delightful commercial of 1988 in which film footage was shown of Lolo (in all of his 400 pound corpulent splendor and a speedo: EEYUK!) cavorting in Cuba with his pal Comrade Fidel; Lieberman having his in-laws show their wrists and Auschwitz tattoos and saying that if Lieberman were Senator, Connecticut would not be afflicted with news footage of him cavorting with Castro. So far, and what reason is there to doubt him (?), Joe has been as good as his word and a far superior senator to Weicker (and has served longer, heh, heh, heh!). But, but, doesn't Weicker support US Tobacco, and Pfizer and Squibb and Friendly Ice Cream and Hartford Steam Boiler and, and other businesses that he inherited? Yeah, so what? Another greedhead posing as Republican by virtue of heredity. He was also almost entirely no good, like Mark Kirk.
My compliments on your post!
Blago won't be indicted either. Nor will Lyin' George Ryan. Nor was Otto Kerner. Nor Tony Rezcko ....... Riiiiighttt! This is Illinois, the federal indictment capitol of the United States. Who are you trying to kid? Jailing elected politicians is one of Illinois's most reliable and successful industries. Right up there with shooting fish in a barrel as to degree of difficulty. Alexi G is in the on-deck circle and comes to bat right after he disposes of the despicable Nancyboy.
What is this IF Nancyboy turns out to be UNACCEPTABLE???? His consistent support for murdering little babies X 1.2 million per year is not unacceptable? His gun grabbing is not unacceptable? His support for all things lavender is not unacceptable. Just three of a thousand or so examples. Are you waiting for Nancyboy to be revealed as the role model for the Texas Chainsaw Massacre perp or as Jeffrey Dahlmer's role model to find him unacceptable??? I know that Illinois is the homeland of John Wayne Gacy and of Richard Sex Changing Serial Killer Speck but those are not traditions worthy of perpetuation whatever liberal Republicans and other RINOs and DIABLOs may hallucinate.
Illinois OTOH was the home of Ronaldus Maximus in his youth. As the late Senator Lloyd Benson might have said: "Ronald Reagan was a friend of ours.....and Nancyboy Kirk is no Ronald Reagan."
Actual principles or jobs and money and contracts for the political whores who are the Combine? No brainer! What John Wayne (the actor not the Gacy) said of Richard Nixon in 1968 is true of Nancyboy as well: Give him a striped silk shirt and piano lessons and he could work any room in the house! What is worse, he actually believes in what he votes for.
BTW, I meant to ping you to #s 128 and 129. My apologies.
When Chiang Kai Shek was fighting the Japanese during World War II, he paid insufficient attention to the potential for evil of the likes of his theoretical allies Mao Tse-Tung and Chou En Lai and Lin Piao and such. After all, they were Chinese and not Japanese. That's how China became Red China and Chiang wound up ruling only Taiwan. Think of Nancyboy as Mao and you will see the point. And, bear in mind that Chiang was one hell of a lot smarter than a Combine "Republican."
Kirk will be supportive of NOTHING that I really find important and will NEVER be trustworthy on anything else. Alexi G will simply be proof that you can trust the Demonrats to be Demonrats and then they are jailed.
Alan Dixon, Carol Mostly Fraud, Comrade Obambam, Ray Burris. Nothing lasts like a Demonrat who has sunk its teeth into a senate seat. Riiiiight! If the Combine were starved of funds, Dickie Durbin (the exception to the rule) would be gone by now but NOOOOOO, the corrupt “Republican” Combiners want to be recharged financially by a Senator Nancyboy and all the graft he can rake in for them so they can keep on nominating unprincipled and brainless nebishes to guarantee Durbin’s continued tenure. Thanks but no thanks!
That babble is meaningless but, thankfully, shorter than your standard stream of gall.
Other than the socialists still living in the mother country I have no problem with Greeks and, in fact, the study of ancient Greece is one of my favorite passtimes.
Chiang Kai Shek, Mao blah, blah, blah more meaningless babble which has nothing to do with your attempt to elect more RATS.
We cannot afford any more RATS. It is actually very simple.
“zillionaire tax cuts?” Wow you really are a leftist aren’t you?
Check today's polling on Real Clear Politics and find that the RCP average now narrowly favors future senator and jailbird Alexi G over Nancyboy by 0.5 percent and that one poll has Alexi G up by 2. This race is moving however glacially against Nancyboy and it is hard for the pollsters to survey the all important Chicago graveyard vote which will. Also note that the conservative (on every issue) Illinois Republican gubernatorial candidate Bill Brady is winning by a solid margin simultaneously, sending the desired message that Illinois conservatives and Illinois voters will stomach no more Nancyboys and no more Judy Topinkas and no more DIABLOS for statewide office but WILL elect solidly conservative Republicans. For those who are obsessed with money, money, money and nothing else, let me translate. It is NOT enough to oppose taxes on a handful of rich guys to call yourself conservative. On taxes, you must also be committed and preliminarily committed to tax cuts for ordinary income earners. AND you must be sound on babies, marriages, military, war, guns and a lot of other issues as well.
Dukakis does not live in "the mother country" so I guess that his general track record including introducing bills to legalize bestiality, and his gun grabbing ways (so reminiscent of Nancyboy) and his spinelessness in foreign policy (so reminiscent of Nancyboy and Comrade Obamao) and his support for various perversions and his opposition to the pledge of allegiance and his opposition to the death penalty for the deserving who have earned it do not bother you either. And you accuse me of giving aid to Democrats in a race where neither candidate is meaningfully distinguishable from the general Demonrat Manifesto on the issues that really matter. It does not matter what they call themselves. It matters how they vote on babies, marriage, guns, military and virile foreign policy. By those votes shall we know them and vote accordingly.
If Dubya had not been all too cute in allowing a sunset clause on his sensible tax cuts (all of them) we would not be having this discussion. Since I am apparently overtaxing (you should pardon the expression) your brain cells by referencing anything but some narrow slice tax cut for the zillionaires such as showing how you are (if and only if you are of good will and conservative disposition) making the same mistake as the one made by Chiang Kai Shek (smarter by far than your usual RINO/DIABLO type who supports Nancyboy).
I support upper bracket tax cuts as part of a coalition only. Those cuts will not have any effect, positive or negative, whatsoever on the well-being of me, my family or my household. If I had a taxable income of, say, $300,000, I think I would be glad to pay another $2500 or less on that marginal income above $250,000 (the amount you are so worked up over) but that's just me. I DO, however, have a right to insist that the fiscally obsessed members of the conservative coalition toe the line on babies, marriages, resisting further inroads by perversion against our civilization, guns, military and war. What makes the tax question so exceptional that it trumps all others.
Time now for a few questions. Your homepage does not reveal where you live. Nor does mine (I think but I never check it), but I have regularly made clear that I am a former resident of Connecticut and have lived in Illinois since moving here in 2000. Do YOU live in Illinois? If not, your life is far less affected by continued leftist control of what passes for the Illinois GOP than are the lives of those who live here. If that is the case, we will decide for ourselves as Illinois conservatives what best suits our interests rather than listen to outsiders who want us to elect legislators who will serve THEIR financial interests.
Next is the question that no RINO or DIABLO ever wants to answer. My resume includes being a GOP Congressional nominee at 27 years of age against a man then about to become House Budget Committee Chairman. On $6,000 in campaign funds, I got a higher percentage of vote as a non-incumbent than did any other non-incumbent in Connecticut that year.
At various times, I was state chairman of Young Americans for Freedom, Young Republicans, College Republicans and the Connecticut Conservative Union. My YAF state organization went from minimal in members and chapters when I was appointed to fourth largest in the country trailing at any given time only three of California, New York, Texas and possibly Illinois. I was Reagan's state chairman when he challenged the ideologically supine Gerald Ford. When the first tax on wages and salaries was imposed on Connecticut in 1971, it was never collected because a coalition including my YAF organization organized anti-tax militants and forced repeal in July of a tax passed arguably on June 30 and not due to be collected until October. Connecticut finally was victim of Lowell Weicker's income tax on wages and salaries in 1991. Weicker was motivated to run for governor to punish conservatives for taking away his Senate seat (an early version of Lisa Murkowski's RINO attitude). Connecticut, BTW, though electing RINOs has had no Democrat governor since Billy O'Neill (a modest bartender) left office by retirement in 1990.
Now the question you probably dare not answer: What's your resume as one who dares suggest that I am some sort of Democrat for being insufficiently enthusiastic in supporting your single-minded lust for lower taxes on the upper crust??? If you want to continue shilling for Nancyboy, I will keep asking that question and the residency question unless and until each is answered. Your silence will probably be more eloquent testimony to the truth of who you are than anything you might say. I have no obligation to elect your choice of Illinois legislators even if you do happen to live here, much less if you do not.
Yeah, ya got me. I’m just one of those leftists who chaired a state Reagan campaign against Ford in 1976. Puhleeze!!! Stop embarrassing yourself.
Glad I live in FL, not IL. We have a few here complaining about Rubio, but most of us are happy about his 25% lead. RINO’s like Kirk or Castle are tough cases, and I likely would not vote for them, never voted for Case or Javits.
What does that have to do with you spouting the class warfare line about tax cuts for the rich while undermining the GOP candidate. Reagan supported his party’s candidates.
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.