Kirk Telephone Townhall

Opinipundit ^ | 8/12/10 | traderrob

[darkangel82]

Kirk voted for cap and trade so he fails an important fiscal test. It just adds to his RINO-ness.

[Graybeard58]

Ideally, you get where he stands from my questions as well or better than you had before.

I don't believe anyone is questioning your interviewing skills but anyone who will bother to look at Kirk's record in the house, already knows exactly where he stands and that is to the left of most democrats in congress.

To those who say he is the lesser of two evils, I say that evil is evil and I don't have to vote for it.

We certainly would not be better off with Kirk in that Senate seat for the very reasons given in above replies.

[BillyBoy]

James Jeffords will vote for a Republican Majority Leader. Oh wait... oops. Nevermind.

Arlen Specter will vote for a Republican Majority Leader. Oh wait... oops. Nevermind.

Mark Kirk will vote for a Republican Majority Leader...

[Dengar01]

How come you and I weren't in on the town hall? I think someone is doing research on us.

I got called the other day from a Michele Bachmann townhall on the phone.

And as far as the whole Brady thing, I am happy Kirk is staying away from Brady, Brady is up by 13 points, Kirk would only hurt Brady.

Wish that Candidate A had accepted the job from the combine, I have no idea why they turned it down, no clue. Candidate A would be up by 20 points on Alexi if Candidate A accepted.

And sorry folks cannot disclose who Candidate A is because I promised I wouldn't and don't want to get sued.

[Dengar01]

Oh and Candidate A would never switch parties, you know I have the inside info on that.

[Dengar01]

Ping!

Let's educate some folks today!

[Dengar01]

Kirk voted for cap and trade so he fails an important fiscal test. It just adds to his RINO-ness.

That is an insult to RINOs! Kirk is a marxist in my opinion and the opinion of most of the active Illinois FReepers who post here daily.

I still guaranteed to Billyboy that Kirk will win because he has a massive, massive warchest.

There was a much better candidate who was offered the job but they declined. For legal reasons I cannot disclose who that was, as the conversation was "off the record".

If the other candidate accepted they would be ahead by 20 points with how corrupt Alexi Giannulious is.

[HenpeckedCon]

If we take the senate at least we can block his heinous' “recess appointments” like the Rats did with President Bush.

[fieldmarshaldj]

DEFEAT MARK KIRK !!

[fieldmarshaldj]

Gee whiz, Mike, why don’t we just get Barbara Boxer to switch parties ? She’ll vote for a Republican to be Majority Leader, right ?

[napscoordinator]

I thank God I am not from the state of Illinois....there is no way in hell I would vote for a baby killer.

[dangus]

We’d need conservatives, not Republicans. Kirk and Castle would just rubber-stamp Obamanations, just like Collins, Snowe and Graham. But mostly we need a conservative president. And Kirk and Castle attacking “extremists within their own party” make that far less likely.

[BillyBoy]

You know what's cute, half the freepers on this board telling we "Have to" vote for the socialist Mark Kirk SOLELY because he'll (allegedly) support Mitch McConnell for majority leader, where the ones saying they'd prefer a DEMOCRAT over Lindsey Graham. So where was their concern for "getting as many Republican Senators elected as possible to stop a Democrat majority" back then? They were perfectly willing to risk having a 60-seat RAT majority as long as it meant getting rid of the hated Graham.

And now they lecture us to elect far-left liberals like Kirk and Castle, who are 10X worse than Graham (I don't recall Lindsey supporting partial birth abortion, hate crime laws, taxpayer funding for embryonic stem cell research, special Protections for "Transgendered Americans, Charlie Rangle's 90 percent bonus tax, SCHIP, the assault weapons ban, closing Gunatanemo Bay, opposing the Iraq surge, etc.)

I'm not impressed with arguments coming from the "do as I say, not as I do" crowd. ESPECIALLY the ones who tell us they're allowed to sit home and sulk that their 90% conservative Senator is not good enough, because they're in a "red" state and those are supposedly the ONLY states where conservatives have a chance.

November should be interesting. Bill Brady's still in double-digits whereas "electable" Mark Kirk is struggling to beat the RAT. I'd love to see the little socialist scumbag go down in flames and prove yet again the "RINOs are the only electable Republicans in blue states" argument is a lie.

[rockrr]

While I agree in principle that tougher questions would have been more appropriate it is, as Mark said, “academic” since he failed on the ‘easy’ ones.

Was he the best that the GOP could prop up, or did someone(s) engineer this choice?

Too bad I can’t vote against him.

[BillyBoy]

I’m sure you had limited time to get your questions in and there was rarely an opportunity to follow up, and that’s the point of these things. You have to understand that Kirk’s “townhall meeting” was structured to sell himself to voters as a “thoughtful”, well-meaning guy who shares their concerns. Kirk’s campaign image is that he’s “fiscally conservative and a taxpayer’s watchdog, a social moderate trying to bring people together, and a hawk on defense issues who an expert on national security”.
The media doesn’t question this; they’re all in the tank for Kirk. They accept his talking points and repeat them verbatim to voters. If you knew nothing about Kirk’s record except what his campaign told you, you’d think he’s some kind of great war hero who is an unflappable foe of big government.
But Kirk is nothing like his campaign “image”. For example:

ABORTION
Kirk is an EXTREME leftist on abortion, but he needs pro-life voters to win, so he’ll just say he supports keeping abortion legal but is a “social moderate”. Many conservative voters therefore believe “he’s better than the Democrat” on this issue and assume although he supports Roe v. Wade he’s against taxpayer funding for abortion and that he favors some kind of limits on late-term abortion. He doesn’t. He supports taxpayer funded abortion on demand and has a 100% rating from NARAL. He’s so far-left on this issue he’s even to the left of Hillary Clinton (she supports parental notification for underage girls seeking abortions across state lines, he doesn’t)

CUTTING GOVENRMENT
Kirk knows running against out-of-control government spending and bailouts is a winning issue, so he says he’s a “fiscal conservative” and will put an end to that. He’s not. It’s the same BS Arnold used to win in California in 2003, and then spent more money than the man he replaced. Kirk has been in Washington 10 years and he’s been part of the problem that led to the current mess. Look at the man’s record – wayyyy too many bad votes to discuss here. Ask yourself, would a “fiscal conservative” get a 19% rating from the Club for Growth? A 17% rating from Citizens for Tax Justice?

JUDICIAL CONFIRMATIONS
During the GOP primary, Kirk needed to get gullible Republican voters to support him, so he made it sound like he was against activist judges to make himself seem more palitable to GOP primary voters. Kirk would phrase his words carefully, and say things like “any judge Obama selects for a lifetime appointment should not be automatically approved by this congress and needs to be carefully scrutined to ensure they will uphold the constitution. Only mainstream judges that abide by the constitution should be confirmed by the Senate”. His supporters spread a whisper campaign that Kirk had told them he “would have voted against Sotomayor” (those Kirk never promised to do so in public). Now Kirk has shown his true colors and has publicly come out and endorses the even worse Marxist Elena Kagan, without any prompting from the media. Kirk says that liberal activist kook is “thoughtful and moderate”. Of course he thinks so; she shares his extreme left-wing “thoughtful” views. The truth is Kirk plans to rubber stamp whatever leftist Obama nominates, though he will put on a dog and pony show about “carefully considering” the candidate before each vote.

GUNATANEMO BAY & EARMARKS
When Kirk was under fire for his cap-n-trade vote, his staff put out talking points that he had supported “the Republican position” 80% of the time last year, and gave a lauder list of items of Kirk’s “positions on the issues during the 111th congress”. According to the list, he was with the GOP on all kinds of important issues with the sole exception of cap-n-trade. For example, it said he “opposes all earmarks” and that he supported “the Republican position” on Guantameo Bay. Except none of it was true. Kirk had taken millions of dollars in earmarks for the first 8 years of his congressional career, until he ran for the Senate and suddenly had a “come-to-Jesus” moment and claimed he had sworn off all earmarks forever (continently at the start of a statewide campaign) He had voted in favor of a GOP resolution saying Gitmo was the best place to house terrorists, but when his vote actually mattered and legislation was passed to close down Gitmo and transfer terrorists to Illinois, Kirk voted with the RATs on final passage. Actions speak louder than words.

GUNS
Many Republican voters (wrongly) assume Kirk is pro-gun because his military background with all his macho fighter-pilot-in-uniform photos (like how many Ahnuld voters thought Arnold was pro-gun simply because he carried truckloads of them around in his fictional Hollywood movies). Even RINO slime was Arlen Specter and Dede Scozzafava were pro-gun, so Kirk must be too? If questioned, Kirk will simply say he “supports the second amendment and respects the rights of law-abiding citizens to own a gun” and that he only supports “reasonable” gun control laws. So again, we’re lead to believe he’s “better than the Democrat” on this issue. The truth is Kirk has an F rating from the NRA and an F- rating from GOA. He has never met a gun control bill he didn’t like. He’s so extreme on this issue that “the Jim & Sarah Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence” recently endorsed him OVER the Democrat for U.S. Senate, saying he had done more for their cause than the Chicago RAT.

IMMIGRATION
Like all politicians, of course Kirk is going to tell voters he’s against illegal immigration and that his end goal is to “secure the borders” and “end illegal immigration”. Again, look at the man’s record and asking yourself if he’s been doing that during his past 10 years in Washington. Is he for or against the Arizona law? He’s against it. Has he voted for or against reporting illegal aliens? He voted against it. Has he voted for or against amnesty bills? He’s voting for most of them. Like most congressmen, he voted to build a border fence, and then didn’t pass anything to fund the project so it didn’t get built. Kirk is a longtime friend of the Mexican government and went to college in Mexico. He speaks fluent Spanish and tells pro-illegal alien lobbyist groups he shares their concerns. You know what Kirk’s “solution” to illegal immigration he? He wants to spend millions of dollars shipping free condoms to Mexico! Yes, you read that right. Kirk is a joke.

In short, look at the man’s career record in politics, not a 30-second soundbite about how he’s “fiscally conservative and socially moderate”. I think you notice he’s an abortion-loving, gun-grabbing socialist who is further left than many card-carrying Chicago Democrats.

[dangus]

Excellent break down. Shall we do a vanity with your research and my analogy?

[PhilCollins]

Did any other conservatives ask him difficult questions? If so, what were they?

[Michael Zak]

Being the Grand Old Partisan, I support the Republican nominee.

[fieldmarshaldj]

In 1936, the Republican nominee for Congress in NY-20 was Vito Marcantonio. Marcantonio was also a Communist and cross-nominated by that party. Would you have supported him simply because he was the “Republican” nominee ?

[traderrob6]

Nope.