Posted on 03/10/2018 10:47:53 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Pro life dems.......don’t exist, the only reason they’d vote pro-life is because they would be voted out if they did not. If they were really so pro life they’d walk away from the abortoinist party.
Again snore
Those that are pro life believe in G-d and the sanctity of life’s creation
Are not going to change
The evil vile it’s not a baby just kill it crowd. Are not going to either
Bottom line.
Be a nice person and civil even to the foul mouthed leftist
Only over time do they ever see the light. If the EVER do
If he were truly pro-life, he’d become a Republican rather than to potentially give Dems the numbers to force their pro-abortion agenda on the masses.
Lipinski’s district (like most of the city and close-in suburbs) is so solidly Democrat the GOP could run Abraham Lincoln himself and he’d still get hammered.
Lipinski, as one would expect of any Democrat, is mostly confused when it comes to matters of economics and centralization of power, but he, like his dad who held the seat before him, is true to his belief in the sanctity of life. In his party and in his district, there is no upside to his pro-life stands - the shrew who is running against him would only serve to solidify the Planned Parenthood extremist wing of the party.
The guy who wrote this article is spot-on, and I say that as one who would like to see the Democrat party reduced to irrelevancy, with the lawbreakers in its leadership led away in orange jumpsuits.
I’m from Chicago. Lipinski is human garbage. IF he’s really pro life he should switch parties.
Just replace him with a pro-life Republican. No one should be a single issue representative.
He’s the Bob Casey of the House but probably is better overall than Casey.
The original district was the 5th and it went for Reagan. Guess what happened to it ? It’s now the 3rd. And the the Chicago wards that were once in the 5th ? All neatly cut up and most of them were given to Guitierz. If any of those areas now need some help they have to go to 2 or 3 aldermen or two congress”persons”.
The alternative is NOT vote for a democrat.
Basically, Mr. Lipinski is the only choice in this race, I believe this is the point the author is trying to make. We are certainly better off with a proven pro-life Democrat than a clown Pubbie who has no chance of being elected.
So you prefer the hard-Left Dem, or the Holocaust-denying Republican that even the GOP does not want and has no realistic chance even if he were Reagan? Given the only 3 options, there's only 1 candidate who is palatable on anything... and that's only 1 issue. So.... a crap sandwich, a horse-apple popsicle, or a poop fondue with a strawberry in it. Might as well get the strawberry.
I came flying in here to throw a bomb but was happy to see your post right off the bat! i’ll go back and sit down! ;)
I remember Bart Stupak voted FOR Obamacare because Obama had promised him that Obamacare wouldn’t fund abortions. Stupak said, before voting, ‘I believe Obama’. I remarked, here at FR, ‘I hope that is his epitaph’. Turns out he lost his seat the very next election.
In 1998 massive numbers of Pro-lifers voted in the Democrat primary for Proshard. In the same election massive numbers of union Democrats voted in the Republican primary for pro-lifer Peter Fitzgerald.
In 2018 Pro-Abortion Rauner is running against pro-life Ives. Every pro-lifer who votes in the Democrat primary is voting for pro-abortion Rauner.
Lipinski will win the primary. Don’t worry. Madigan needs to protect his flanks. Madigan decides the congressman in that district.
No dem-o-rat is worth voting for.
I remember the 2014 election for Governor pretty clearly (I also remember 2010 and 2006 pretty well, so I can safely say that Mark Kirk did NOT "work the suburbs harder" in 2010, for example).
Looking back at 2014, I distinctly remember NUMEROUS conservatives on here saying that they were backing Rauner over Rutherford because they were convinced Rutherford was a homo. The fact Rauner was 20X to the left of Rutherford didn’t stop them from supporting him. So apparently having a married Governor in office was more important than them than saving babies or preventing illegal aliens from voting for Democrats.
Well, four years later, we can be certain Bruce and his liberal Democrat wife are not gay, so I guess the Rauner backers can take comfort in that. Illinois did not get a gay Governor.
As for me, I would GLADLY have an unmarried middle aged pro-life and pro-gun man in office instead of leftist backstabbers Bruce & Diane.
On a related note, I very clearly remember Bruce Rauner being very proud and PUBLICLY gloat about his support for Planned Parenthood (Phil Collins remembers it too, and both of us remember warning conservatives and "Tea Party" people about that, given that the other three candidates in the primary -- Rutherford, Brady, and Dillard -- were all proven pro-lifers, making Rauner CLEARLY the MOST LIBERAL of the four Republicans running). Again, it did not stop numerous conservatives from pimping Rauner during that primary. I guess getting a nice donation from Bruce's bank account and being "not gay" are big priorities with some Illinois conservatives.
Those of who were paying attention in 2014 don't see that Rauner "betrayed" us on social issues. He pretty much governed exactly as his track record (a hard core social liberal who is best pals with Rahm Emanuel and married to a card-carrying proud liberal Democrat) showed he would.
If my memory is mistaken, please let me know.
Rauner’s been pretty GAY as far as I’m concerned. He’s well sodomized the state of Illinois.
And pro-life people should have learned a lesson. When the chips are down the "pro-life" democrat is a democrat first and always.
It is like trusting the french.
Not healthy for long term survival.
Rutherford was done after the scandal, true or not (and I don’t know even if he was gay why he would try to rape some ugly dude and honestly I wouldn’t give a damn if he screwed circus animals as long as he could win, but he was done), primary votes for him were wasted, he came in a poor 4th.
Rauner’s main competition was Dillard, this was known. On paper at least pro-life and stuff but a combiner. I couldn’t bring myself to vote for him, and you could make the case Rauner was to be preferred to him.
So I voted for Brady, despite being displeased that he ran again after a poor performance (I believe he won and was robbed but it shouldn’t have been close enough to steal, he was a poor candidate).
A bushel of poor choices.
As for sodomy, Quinn is who hurt my butt. Rauner=Satan bores me, he is what he is, which is better than Quinn not to mention lard boy Prickzer.
I don’t think Rauner can win reelection with his horrible numbers. I don’t think Ives is likely win either but at worst it’s a push so she’s the clear choice to vote for.
We really needed Brady to win in 2010, winning 2014 and losing in 2018 does us no good for redistricting.
As to this article, conservative Republicans in Lipinski’s district should vote in the Republican primary to make sure Erica Harold is nominated for Attorney General, if nothing else, and look for a Republican to run for the district in 2020. For the point of view of having any chance of winning the seat in 2020 (it would be tough to win but isn’t safe), it’s better that the Progtard witch beats Lipinski and in a macro sense it’s good if moderates learn they have no place in the democrat party.
The chance for a conservative victory in this state was 2010 (NOT 2006, 2014, and 2018 -- which were all extreme long shots for anyone decent winning), and we blew it, thanks to voter fraud and numerous "conservatives" (who shall go unnamed but some of whom post on FR) who threw Brady to the wolves because he wasn't perfect enough for them. Good luck getting another conservative nominated for Governor after that. Talk about cutting off your nose to spit in your face.
Some IL GOP partisans want to continue to buy the "Kirk just worked harder in the suburbs" fantasy, which is about about true as the Hillary backers deluding themselves that "Russian hackers" are responsible for Trump winning instead of their candidate sucking.
The fact so many conservative sellouts who hopped on the Rauner train during the PRIMARY are now trying to spin their decision to back the MOST LIBERAL Republican is irritating though. Actions have consequences. The so-called "Tea Party" people who took the Rauner cash and turned a deaf ear to his PUBLIC support of liberal causes need to be held accountable.
I will not vote for Rauner if he wins the primary, but Pritzler is such a horrible dirtbag I'm not going to make up some "there's no difference between the two" hyperbole.
I also agree with you and Spintreebob that Lipinski is unlikely to lose the RAT primary (mainly because incumbents almost always win re-nomination and he has the party machinery on his side), as much as the Bernie Sanders types loathe him. If I lived in IL-3 I'd vote in the GOP primary
One point I'd disagree on though, I'm no longer supporting Harold for A.G. She was a favorite of mine until a few months ago, but Rauner hand-picked her for the A.G. race and she's sold her soul to him. She's "evolved" her positions and is now promoting Rauner's policies. She even attacked Ives and demanded Ives pull her anti-Rauner ads. Like when Bob Barr went nuts after losing his congressional seat, a former rock star conservative is now dead to me. (I even emailed Harold and told her I was withdrawing my endorsement for her, whatever its worth) Gary Grasso is both more conservative and more qualified for the job than Harold, he'll be getting my vote in the primary (though I will be shocked if Harold doesn't win the primary).
I'll hold my nose for Harold in November if she's the nominee.
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.