He may be a Diablo, RINO or whatever but when I spotted Pat Quinn my blood pressure spiked and I had to have my dad calm me down otherwise I may have ran on the field.
On the other hand I've met with Mark Kirk in person and so far he is to the right of Scott Brown, the Maine Twins, McCain/Grahmnesty and Lugar.
DJ when you and I got into it a long time ago I told you Mark was a history buff and I really did believe he was legit. I'm starting to drink my own kool-aid and believe he only voted socialist for that hell hole district up North (all who are Cubs fans mind you...)
:D
Oh and for impy.... GO BEARS!!! SUPERBOWL 2012!!!
They haven’t released the voting numbers for this year, but Brown got a 74 last year from the ACU and Kirk got a 62 (a bit high if you ask me). I have more respect for Brown than Kirk, however. Kirk & Quinn were the anointed bipartisan Combiner choices for their respective offices, and we both know how they got “chosen.” At least Quinn doesn’t pretend to be a Republican.
Mark Kirk is to the left of Lugar, Brown, and FAR to the left of McCain & Graham, political scorecards don't lie.
On EVERY issue you can think of that McCain & Graham are bad on (sucking up to illegals, activist judges, etc.), Kirk has an equally bad record. However, there are many more issues where McCain & Graham supported the GOP whereas Kirk sided with the enemy. They are polar opposites on those issues. Graham has a solid pro-life record won a pro-life leadership award from South Carolina right-to-life in 2008 whereas Kirk gloats about his 100% rating from Planned Parenthood. Graham gets high ratings from gun rights groups whereas Kirk is so liberal on gun control that Jim & Sarah Brady endorsed him over Giannoulias. Graham was one of the most outspoken supporters of the surge in Iraq whereas Kirk led the fight AGAINST it. And so and so and so on. Look at where they stand issue-by-issue and educate yourself. It's silly when freeprs claim Graham is the most liberal Republican ever whereas Kirk is a "moderate". In reality, Kirk would have to move about 20X to the right to be as liberal as Lindsey Graham.
>> DJ when you and I got into it a long time ago I told you Mark was a history buff and I really did believe he was legit. I'm starting to drink my own kool-aid and believe he only voted socialist for that hell hole district up North (all who are Cubs fans mind you...) <<
You are starting to drink the kool-aid, Dengar. Looking at Kirk's voting record, the claims that Kirk would be more "moderate" once he represents "the whole state" have been proven false. In fact, Kirk has actually moved LEFTWARD since getting statewide office. As a Congressman, he opposed gays serving openly in the military. As a Senator, he voted in favor of it. As a Congressman, he supported making the Bush tax cuts permanant. As a Senator, he actually voted AGAINST it (the ONE issue that "fiscal conservative" Mark Kirk claimed to be COMPLETELY on "our side"!) Remember, in spite of Kirk supporter delusions, Illinois as a whole is actually more liberal than his district, not less (McCain won by 1% more in Kirk's "liberal" district than Illinois as a whole). Kirk now represents the entire city of Chicago and votes accordingly to please his combine masters in Chicago. Partial-birth abortion loving Mark Kirk doesn't vote this way because Illinois citizens are all card-carying ACLU members that demand it. Step away from the kool-aid, my friend.
As for the ACU ratings, Brown's 74% and Kirk's 61% are both higher than I expected. They base it around 24 or so pieces of legislation, perhaps the conservative bills they picked this year were less polarizing and therefore "easier" for "moderates" to support. In any case, Brown has been a disappointment on many important bils, but yes he is still better than a combine yes-man like Kirk. Kirk only votes with the GOP when it's "safe" to do so and won't change the outcome of the bill. The Maine twins may be worse than Kirk this year, but I haven't checked up on them lately. According to recent studies, "Republican" Lisa Murkowski is the worst of all and has gone from borderline RINO to full fledged DIABLO, but that's because she defeated the GOP nominee and is now a free agent. She caucuses with Republicans but she is not an elected Republican despite the media claiming she is a "Republican". She's a corporate-owned big government liberal who can screw over the GOP all she wants for the next six years.
>> Back to Keyes. There were two people the Combine were going to choose Keyes and some black woman I've never heard of and you know I know most of the power players in this state. In 2004 we had many options they could have dug up Jim Edgar (RINO but not zero), Peter Roskam (look at him now he's in the House Leadership!!!) But no, they had to pander to blacks and choose only a black candidate so they IL GOP came off as Politically Correct. I respect Alan Keyes however there are certain FReepers including some Mods who worship Alan Keyes more than they Worship Jesus Christ. Yeah, he is a great man with great principles but you can't have a carpetbagger that no one in this state knows run for office with 3 months of campaigning and expect him to even get 40% of the vote. <<
Freeper Therightguy was asking about the 2004 campaign lately. Needless to say, the selection process after the combine drove Jack Ryan out of the race was fixed. The choice was between Keyes and Dr. Andrea Barthwell (that's the unknown black women who was a Democrat in GOP clothing), so of course conservatives were going to recommend Keyes given those "finalists". This led to the myth that "conservatives wanted Keyes", when in reality he was set up by the combine to take the fall. Keyes ran a lousy campaign but no Republican could have won other those circumstances. (I think a Republican who mounted a credible campaign would have gotten around 45% instead of 29% though). Now the official memo from the Kirk loving combine is to use Keyes as the boogeyman that proves "conservatives can't win" Illinois, nevermind the fact he was an 11th hour replacement candidate from out of state. You will note that in 2008, the hand-picked "electable moderate" U.S. Senate, Steve Sauerberg (a lifelong Illinoisan who had monthes to campaign against Durbin during the February primary), did even worse than Keyes and won a pathetic three counties against Dick Durbin. But the combine and media will ignore that fact, since it goes against the "moderates do better in Illinois" narrative. Just like they will ignore that solidly pro-life and pro-gun Dan Rutherford was the biggest vote-getter in Kirk's district during the 2010 campaign. The general public will never hear about that unless they read FR.