Posted on 10/07/2010 8:49:15 PM PDT by Inyokern
Giannoulias, if he wins, does not mean Demonrat control of the Senate. If we can stop the music with 41 mostly GOP Senators (Snowe?, Collins?, Voinovich?), then 47 or 48 or 49 will not diminish that status. 51 means that money-grubbing corrupt senior GOP senators are back in business as usual selling their committee chairmanships, votes and policies and teeing off the Tea Party people who are one hell of a lot more important to the future of the GOP than investment bankers and Nancyboys. NO GOP SENATE MAJORITY until the 2012 election when they are ready to govern, when we have purged the worst of one more class of corrupted Republicans and had an opportunity to defeat Comrade Obamao and a multitude of as many as twenty of his senators. A newly elected GOP POTUS will send judicial appointments to the Senate. It is after 2012 that we need not a mere majority but a large one to geld the SCOTUS. The target rich classes of 2012 and 2014 will give us such a majority. The 2014 class has similar numbers. Jim DeMint says they are not now ready to govern and he is right.
A vote for Labno is a vote for Labno. Let the Combine RINOs gargle sulfuric acid over each and every rebellious vote for Labno. Some of us will further confound them by electing Brady and voting for Giannoulias. We can put the lie once and for all to the Rockefeller/Lindsay/Combine lie that conservatives cannot be elected here. The difference between support for Brady and the fading of Nancyboy will tell the Combine what they need to hear.
What is your next Combine crusade? Judy Bahr Toooopinka, you're our only hope!!!????
THAT is tagline material. So true.
Coupon clipping? My background is that I am a handicapped man who became successful self-made businessman. Yeah, I make quite a bit more than 250K and I am proud of every dollar of it. I do not want the government taking my money to give to the "more deserving." No one deserves my money more than I do.
Since when does a Republican not care about tax increases? You may have been a Republican at one time but you seem to be working for Giannoulias now. You don't even deny it.
Labno my eye. You know very well he has no chance whatsoever.
Huh? Where did Calcowgirl even mention Labno's chances? I don't think she even mentioned his name. How can she "lie" about a candidate she never discussed?
Those of us who are backing Labno know he's a huge underdog since the liberal Obama media ignores him and is in the tank for Kirk. We are supporting him mainly as a protest vote against the three socialists. It would be great if he wins but we're under no illusions that it's likely to happen.
You really seem to grasping at straws trying to call us liars when I point out the fact all the Kirk backers here repeatedly give false information about his positions in order to get conservatives stomach him.
Nobody has said Labno is the likely winner in this race, or that Kirk and Alexi are 100% identical on every issue. But Kirk supporters have lied over and over again for months claiming he's "against activist judges", "never takes earmarks", "solid on immigration" "a pretty reliable fiscal conservative", "deployed to Iraq to defend our freedoms", the list goes on and on. And when they're presented with undeniable facts about his real record, many just head on over to other thread to continue trying to sell their false image of Kirk to conservatives.
One thing I've noticed about Kirk backers is they always seem to be the very image of the smear they hurl against others. That includes being "purist" Republicans who won't tolerate anyone here who doesn't do their bidding 100% of the time, habitual liars, and sympathetic to leftists and the Chicago media elite.
I am a minor league amputee. It does not make me one bit more or one bit less correct in my views or deserving as a human being. The movement has cut your marginal taxes by nearly two thirds and you have a life to enjoy it which is more than 50 million slaughtered babies can say. Try to maintain a little dignity and to remember that it is NOT all about you and your bankbook. If Nancyboy is defeated, I will be proud of that fact and that is justifiable Republican and conservative pride. If we are going to have babykilling, gungrabbing, marriage destroying slime in the US Senate, by all means let it be Demonrat slime. I never urged anyone to vote for Labno although that would certainly be better than voting for Nancyboy. Best is to destroy (not merely defeat) Nancyboy.
Again, I am awaiting your conservative resume. I guess I wait in vain.
Try to see your taxes held in check or lowered without the votes of SOCIAL ISSUE conservatives or conservatives, for short. What percentage of the people who vote in this country do you suppose actually give a rat's patoot whether your taxes are raised by 4.6% on that income above $250,000. Social issue conservatives will generally support restraint on your taxes but, frankly, you should be honest enough to recognize that the group of big earners to whom you belong constitutes an albatross politically and our support of your desires on taxes costs us big time with the general electorate. Money is only money and in politics it is not as valuable as votes.
Don't give me this gas about how tax arguments somehow determine who is a Republican. There is an awful lot of issues that define conservatism and taxes (particularly when the consensus Demonrat and Republican alike is to leave the rates alone at a level of about 1/3 of what it was pre-Reagan on that marginal income until one earns marginal income above $250,000). Social conservatives carry your water and don't you ever forget it. Your reciprocal obligation is support of the babies, marriages, guns, military, etc. If you don't want to meet those obligations, then depart for the Demonratic Party where you belong. With modified tax policies, we can recruit ten Democrat social conservatives to replace each departing materialist obsessive.
That having been said, no one deserves your money more than you but not one baby's life should be offered on the altar of Moloch for Nancyboy even if he could get you a lifetime pass on all taxes.
BTW, Marxism is also called dialectical materialism. That is only one form of materialism but it IS a form of materialism. Conservatism far transcends mere materialism, respectable or otherwise.
Thanks for your kind words. IIRC, you and I found common ground in opposition to Schwarzenkennedy, did we not?
He's the ironic thing. Kirk was shoved down our throats by the IL GOP establishment (and no it was NOT a fair primary, no matter Kirk supporters try to spin it, that was a corination by the state party and Kirk wouldn't even debate his primary opponents). The reason why they kept pushing for Kirk is they told us over and over again that Illinois a "moderate" state and Kirk's values made him "electable" here.
But now that he's the nominee, the IL GOP establishments realizes the more voters learn about Kirk's "values", the less they like him. There is a backlash against Obama's failed policies and voters do NOT like candidates who supported cap n' trade, voted for partial-birth abortion, championed Elena Kagen, etc. The only voters who respond positively to those "values" are hard-core leftist Democrats who vote for any "D" on the ballot and make up Alexi's base. As a result, Kirk is struggling to win over the rest (60-70%) of the electorate, including those "moderate indepedents" he would supposedly be so popular with. Polls show the majority of Illinois voters view BOTH major party nominees unfavorably.
Rather than try to convince Kirk is stop supporting socialism, an effort has been made to try and run like hell from Kirk's "record" and hide it from Illinois voters. They've crafted an image of him that is wholly fictional. Kirk is even running as a "reformer" and anti-Washington candidate despite being the ultimate Washington insider for decades who supported the status quo regardless of what party was in power. He was even an officer at the World Bank and Bill Clinton's "special envoy" to Haiti.
The bottom line is that voters will never accept that Kirk's fringe "values" supporting partial birth abortion, transgender "rights", and so on are "thoughtful and moderate", no matter how much he claims to represent the mainstream.
It is Kirk who is the out-of-touch extremist, not the people who oppose him.
And again, if people want to vote for someone with Kirk's "values", go for it. But we fully intend to inform people of his actual policies. If that makes you uncomfortable because it hurts Kirk's election chances, take it up with him. It's not my fault he's been digging his own grave.
Yes, we did. That was a long time ago.
Back before the monster was created.
With the exception of the income tax rate levels, Elk got everything else right. (FYI: Rates went from 90% to 70%, in the 60’s down to 50% under Reagan’s first term, and then dwn farter under TEFRA in ‘86)
Since BlackElk covered so much ground, I am going to make two points.
POINT #1
Conservatives are against higher taxes for families, and against higher taxes for businesses. In CT, we were stabbed in the back by CBIA (CT Business and Industry Association) when they supported the imposition of CT’s state income tax. That support was key, as it gave cover to the pro-tax votes.
When I ran for state rep in CT in ‘96, I attacked my Dem opponent for accepting the endorsement of such a pro-tax organization. She, of course, basked in it.
I move to Illinois, and find that the local realtors, the RAAR, never saw a property tax refereendum they didn’t like, and spnsored radio ads and billboards pushing property tax hikes. I sold my last house in Illinois WITHOUT a realtor, as I did not want part of the 6-7% fee working against me.
The lesson? Business interests are eager to sacrifice the interests of indivduals and families in order to save themselves. They are like Lost in Space’s simpering Dr. Smith, yelling, “The pain ... the pain!” as they willingly betray those who have saved them time and again. They also are not shy in asking for subsidies that are paid for from those same income taxes and increased property taxes.
Can we form alliances with them from time to time? Sure, but they are not our friends, and you’d best not turn your back on them.
POINT #2
For those who stated that those of us who say, “Don’t vote for Kirk” or “Vote for Giannoulias” are Paultards or Dem plants ...
You should have been at the Giovanni’s Restaurant in Rockford, Illinois, when Roger Hedgecock came into town to promote and broadcast his show several weeks ago.
When Kirk was announced as a guest, about ONE-THIRD of us booed. If you listened to the program, it might have been audible. Hedgecock had to calm us down. Hedgecock, for his part, was pushing both Castle AND Kirk for many of the reasons listed in these posts.
Well, we know what happened to Castle. VERY few of us FREEPers regret it, even if it means we have an obnoxious DEM instead of a DIABLO if office.
Guys like Kirk, Romney, Schwarzenegger, Rowland/Rell, George Ryan, Castle get status in blue states, and proceed to spay/neuter the Republican operation, placing flaming social liberals (in the case of CT and Massachusetts, often real-life Republican Barney Franks) and playing whack-a-mole whenever a socially conservative Republican (like Peter Fitzgerald) tries to make a move. There is a reason why the Christine O’Donnells are under-credentialed. It is to her credit that she fights the good fight with no real support from the Republican machinery in the state.
We can fix things, somewhat, but there will be pain first. The root canal of Carol Mosely-Braun was worth getting rid of Chuck Percy, as she was in turn replaced by a good man, Peter Fitzgerald.
The Republican Party is in a fight for it’s soul. Mark Kirk is an ocasion of Mortal Sin.
Darn good post.
“You are hoping that Giannoulias wins because you “know” he will be indicted and then Governor Brady will get to appoint a genuine conservative senator.”
No. I am hoping he wins because when I have a choice of whom to support, my first inclination is “keep the lefties in the DEMORAT party. When one of “them” runs as a Republican, it might change the growl but the spots are still there. This asshat you are pushing is to the left of several democrats that I personally know.
So you don't care if the Bush tax cuts are extended or not. You said it right there. You want Giannoulias to win and you don't care if taxes go up.
And YOU hold yourself up as a better conservative than anybody else??? Don't make me laugh. You are just a petulant child who, if he doesn't get 100% of what he wants, takes his ball and goes home.
Ronaldus Magnus was a lot more mature than you are -- thank God. He knew he needed Mark Kirk-type Republicans to make a Republican majority and he campaigned for plenty of them. If Ronaldus Magnus were alive today, he would tell you you should be ashamed of yourself.
“So you don’t care if the Bush tax cuts are extended or not. You said it right there. You want Giannoulias to win and you don’t care if taxes go up.”
To most conservatives (yourself excluded) the lives of babies are FAR more important than money. LIFE, LIBERTY and the pursuit of happiness. The first and BY FAR most important of these values is LIFE. I am sorry if that pains you. Wait, no I’m not.
“So you don’t care if the Bush tax cuts are extended or not. You said it right there. You want Giannoulias to win and you don’t care if taxes go up.”
To most conservatives (yourself excluded) the lives of babies are FAR more important than money. LIFE, LIBERTY and the pursuit of happiness. The first and BY FAR most important of these values is LIFE. I am sorry if that pains you. Wait, no I’m not.
Oh, so your guy Giannoulias is pro-life? I didn't know that. This is what he says on his website:
The decision to have an abortion is a deeply personal and difficult one. Alexi is committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose under Roe v. Wade, and opposes any constitutional amendment that would override that right.
http://www.alexiforillinois.com/issues/womens-issues
You don't seem to know what the hell you are talking about.
LMAO!!! I knew this argument had to come up sooner or later. It's on the standard talking points memo of every Kirk supporter. We explain to you that we oppose Kirk because he agrees with Democrats on the MAJORITY of issues, and you come back and argue we're against Kirk because we only support Republicans who agree with us 100% of the time.
How do you explain the fact I supported Scott Brown then? Or Norm Coleman? Or Mike Dewine? How about the FACT I only voted for McCain for President in 2008, but campaign for him (check the FR achieves) if you don't believe me. How about the fact I've been rooting for Joseph Cao in Louisiana? Do you think I agree with all those people "100%" of the time? More strawman arguements. Why must Kirk supporters always resort to lies in order to promote Mark Kirk?
Again, let me remind you the only one demanding "100% purity" is Kirk supporters. Kirk supporters resort to demonizing conservative activists who routinely support 90% of the Republicans on the ballot. But that's not good enough for you, is it? You demand we support 100% of the Republican nominees, and if you refuse to do so you spread a smear campaign that we're all Democrat moles, traitors, Harry Reid supporters, etc., etc.
It's interesting how you so richly represent the very thing you accuse other people of being. If you want to see a narrow-minded Republican who demands 100% purity from other Republicans, look in the mirror.
“Oh, so your guy Giannoulias is pro-life?”
Beats the hell outta me but we know Kirk isn’t either so if I had to choose which party I want supporting baby killing leftists, I choose the Democrats.
“Why must Kirk supporters always resort to lies in order to promote Mark Kirk?”
Because the truth does nothing but hurt their pet leftist?
You are hardly the spokesman for what Ronald Reagan would do. Reagan's words speak for themselves. Here is Ronald Reagan's answer to you about Kirk-style "Republicans" wanting our support:
=================================================
“We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals as our opposition and who seek our support. Turning the Party over to the so-called moderates wouldn’t make any sense at all.”
—Ronald Reagan
Nothing is certain in life, Inyokern. The scenario of what happens if Alexi wins isn't guaranteed, but it is very likely Brady will win, Alexi would get indicted, and Brady would name a conservative replacement.
Alternatively, the "reasons" we're given to vote for Kirk is that he will be a vote for a Republican Majority Leader and Kirk will cast the key vote to put the Republicans in charge of all the committees, then the Republican-controlled Senate can promote extended tax cuts and control the agenda and everything will be all rosy.
This scenario has even more disqualifiers:
1) It's not certain the makeup of the Senate would be split exactly 50-50, thus making Kirk's election the instrumental 51st vote on who control's the Senate.
2) It's not certain Kirk would vote for a Republican Majority Leader. He has made no such pledge to support whoever the Republicans nominate. And given that Kirk is an idealogical Jeffords clone, it's entirely possible the Dems could convince him to vote for their guy is the event you did you have a 50-50 senate.
3) It's not certain Kirk would vote YES on all tax cut bills in the Senate. Kirk has done so previously as a House member, but he's also shown a willingness to compromise or flip-flop on ANY issue for political expediancy. For example, he always voted with the GOP on Iraq until the surge vote when he sold out for political expediency. If "the polls" showed the American public supported the RATs on a tax bill, and the mainstream media was heavily promoting the RAT position, it's entirely possible Kirk could switch to the RATs on that bill.
4) It's not certain such legislation would reach the Senate floor even IF Republicans controlled the Senate on paper. Thanks to having lots of RINOs like Kirk, they might have a majority on paper only and the RATs could be exercising defacto control of the Senate, filibustering legislation and locking it in committee, preventing it from every coming to a floor vote, so Kirk wouldn't be weighing in on the legislation.
5) In the event such bills ARE passed, it's not certain they would become law. Obama would still be President, he would be likely to veto GOP-written legislation. It's almost guaranteed the Republicans would have 2/3rds membership in both bodies, thus they would have a hard time overriding a presidential veto without a large number of Democrat crossover support.
So if you want to look at things objectively, it's a lot easier for scenario #1 than scenario #2 where we have a good conservative Republican Senate passing legislation thanks to Mark Kirk.
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.