Posted on 08/12/2010 7:52:00 PM PDT by traderrob6
Nope.
You’re accusing Rep. Mark Kirk of being a Communist?
That’s not what I asked, now is it ? Does your partisanship mean you support the most execrable candidates put up under the most dubious of circumstances simply because they have an “R” after their name on the ballot ? Communists, Combiners, crooks, sociopaths, whathaveyou ?
Ignore the naysayers. Kirk handily beat his conservative opponent in the primary six months ago. The time to oppose him has long since past.
That was not a fair election any more than the ‘08 Presidential race was. It was fixed from the start by the Combine and any credible challengers were threatened out of the race. This man is no honorable candidate, no Conservative, not even a moderate. He is a part of a corrupt machine, he is a chronic liar, a sociopath, and a left-winger who favors infanticide and the illegal invasion. Electing him as a “Republican” would be a disaster and embarrassment to us. He MUST be defeated or run out of this race.
He was not the best, he was the absolute worst. And this was orchestrated 100% despite others going out of their way to deny and lie about it (interestingly, they always seem to be IL FReepers who have never been a part of the discussions of these races who seem to have the stench of troll and paid hack all over them, and use the same talking points to defend Kirk). A corrupt deal by the Combiners (the same group that gave America Obama) to assure they would control both party nominees in IL. The sad part is that too many IL voters don’t know that the fix is in and that they have no real choice between the two nominees. A Socialist crook (Alexi) or a Socialist sociopath (Kirk), both puppets for the Combine.
Illinois has plenty of choices for Senate. GOP and Dem are not the only candidates on the ballot. Two much more conservative candidates are available on the libertarian and constitution party tickets. I’d love to see the major parties defeated in this but so far I don’t see much campaigning from either libertarian or cp candidates.
I knew where Kirk stood 2 years ago. Unfortunately, Illinois Republican voters were too lazy and stupid to study the primary candidates in time for an extremely early February Primary. Kirk won hands down. How does the Supreme Court protect the unborn? That is the stupidest answer I’ve ever heard. It shows what a joke it is, that millions of lives have been destroyed by the decision of 9 Justices. That is a shame. We the people (aka elected representatives) need to protect the unborn. Leaving it up to the courts is cowardice.
I was listening to Hugh Hewitt show the other night and while he was interviewing Fred Barnes, Hugh mentioned that due to the special elections in IL and DE, Kirk and Castle could take office right after the November elections, if they win and could halt the lame-duck session legislation like Cap-n-Trade. Hugh didn’t even mentioned that both Kirk and Castle voted YES on cap and trade when they were in the House, last summer.
Why do conservative cash cows like Hewitt, who have a radio show, column, etc., etc., focus on every aspect in politics, but forget how politicians actually voted on major legislation?
Pathetic.
Sadly, even one vote that helps the Republicans is better than the alternative.
This is what Illinois can offer the country. Oh, and Barack 0bama, your president.
Ronald Reagan used to quote Voltaire: “The perfect is the enemy of the good.”
You dodged my questions, Mr. Zak. I would appreciate a direct answer, starting with the Marcantonio one. If your “quote” is any indication of your stance, since you haven’t answered my questions, apparently you have no problem with Socialists, sociopaths, Combiners, chronic liars, and other criminal elements undermining the Conservative movement, just so long as they have an “R” after their name. A party of no principles for which stands for anything and everything, and hence, nothing.
If the Republican Party is to unapologetically consist mightily of said “Imperfects” who have as much use for Conservatism as the anti-American left that has hijacked the Democrat Party has, it should be just as swiftly discarded and replaced with a new party that WILL be the champion of American/Pro-Constitutional values, consisting of people that demand the HIGHEST standards from its elected officials, and not drag the bottom, as the execrable Mark Kirk is a most glaring example of.
In conclusion, I might remind you, Mr. Zak, that when Reagan spoke of people who disagreed with him, he spoke of those as allies who only disagreed upwards of 20% of the time, not those that did so 80% or all of the time.
“You’re accusing Rep. Mark Kirk of being a Communist?”
He’s as close as any socialist democrat in congress. Yes, he’s that bad.
Should we add queer to the list? (It’s a legitimate question.)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2526155/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2525571/posts
I’m puzzled why Mr. Zak hasn’t answered any of my questions.
Hewitt is right on the money. Who knows what Kirk and Castle's democrat opponents would vote for if they get put in the same situation? The sooner the Republican numbers in the Senate are added to the better.
Did you even bother to read the rest of Windy’s comments ? Castle and Kirk vote like Democrats on these issues ! You’d have BAD legislation pushed through with “bipartisan” support from Socialist RINOs ! These menaces need to be stopped at ALL costs !
What part of that logic don't you understand?
Mike, I've not only read your book, I have a copy of it on my shelf. It's an excellent read and I recommend it for everyone here. That being said, I'm surprised your often don't apply your own lessons in the book to today's candidates. One of your most interesting chapters is your book talks about the huge mistake the GOP made in 1860 by putting Democrat Andrew Johnson on the Republican ticket, even though he didn't agree with any of the planks in the GOP platform. The idea was simply that a "bipartisan" ticket would win over pro-union Democrats. But then Lincoln died and the GOP found themselves stuck with a supporter of the opposition party running the nation. Johnson did not share of ANY the GOP's policy goals, he had agreed to run with Lincoln solely because all his fellow southern Democrats had left the union while he supported it.
I don't think Andrew Johnson was quite the disaster you made him out to be, but the lesson learned was clear. The GOP should not put people on their ticket who are wedded to the goals of the opposition, simply to have more "Republicans" elected on paper. That lesson is still true in 2010, which is why "Republican" Mark Kirk should not have been our Senate nominee when the man has a virtually pristine liberal Democrat voting record. Kirk is even to the left of many card-carrying Chicago Democrats. I have Chicago Democrats representing me in the Illinois State Senate and Illinois House, and neither is an liberal as Kirk. The only thing elevating him to the Senate will accomplish is making it easier for Obama to enact his agenda by claiming it has "bipartisan" support.
I believe you were one of the people on this board who also supported "Republican" Arnold Schwarzenegger over an actual Republican, Tom McClintock. Fieldmarshaldj and myself supported McClintock. History has simply shown you were wrong and we were right. Even the most hardened pro-Arnold people on this board no longer defend him. Schwarzenegger not only governed as a defacto Democrat, his total record was actually WORSE than the Democrat he replaced. Arnold pushed for tax-and-spend policies at a much greater rate than Gray Davis had, and enacted several of the Democrat's liberal policy initiatives that Davis could only dream of. He even moved the state supreme court further left than it had been under the previous Dem governor. Like Andrew Johnson, Arnold was literally in bed with the Democrats. Electing him governor effectively put the Kennedy family in charge of California.
I agree with Ronald Reagan that a person who is with me 80% of the time is not my enemy. I also believe the reverse is true -- a person who is with me 20% of the time is not my friend. That applies when the 20% person is a "moderate Democrat" like Stephanie Herseth Sandlin or an "independent" Republican like Mark Kirk. Fieldmarshaldj is right, a party of no principles for which stands for anything and everything, and hence, nothing. The GOP cannot be all things to all people.
>> You’re accusing Rep. Mark Kirk of being a Communist? <<
I would certainly say Kirk is a communist sympathizer at the very least. If you read up on Kirk's background, one of his biggest pet priorities is to get the USA to cozy up to communist China more and accept their government. Indeed, Kirk founded the "bipartisan" U.S. China-Working Group in June 2005 with Rep. Rick Larsen (D-Wash). Larsen is the one of the card-carrying House "progressives" who is in bed with pinko commies. Read on this caucus' priorities, it all involves sucking up to communist China.
One thing that is clear to anyone who wishes to be honest about the man's record -- is that Kirk is a socialist. NO more person in their right mind who supports capitalism and free markets would vote for the kind of policies Kirk favors. Those policies include his support for Cap & Trade, CAFE standards, SCHIP Program, Charlie Rangle's 90 percent bonus tax -- all extreme left-wing Democrat legislation designed to give the government direct control over the economy.
>> Sadly, even one vote that helps the Republicans is better than the alternative. This is what Illinois can offer the country. Oh, and Barack 0bama, your president. <<
Would you support Barack Obama if he had the exact same platform as he holds now, but had an "R" next to his name on the ballot? Incidentally, Kirk is such an extreme leftist than he's even rated to the left of Obama himself on some issues. The far-left Sierra Club cooed over that fact during the last election cycle, reporting that Obama had voted with them 92% of the time but Kirk had voted with them 96% of the time. They proudly endorsed Kirk over the Marxist Chicago machine Democrat he was running against, highlighting the fact he was "better than Obama" for their agenda. Kirk eagerly accepted their endorsement and trumped it in TV ads. What does that say about "moderate" Mark Kirk when he's legislating to the left of Obama?
There are no answers to those questions that could possibly shine any positive light on the socialist, ultra liberal bastard Kirk.
If, God forbid, Romney should get the republican nomination for 2012, we will be having these conversations again because I'll never vote for that socialist baby killing pig either, no matter what letter he puts behind his name.
Picture these two different scenarios appearing in the headlines:
"INDICTED DEMOCRAT & OBAMA PAL FROM CHICAGO ENDORSES PRESIDENT'S STATE-OF-THE-UNION GOALS"
"DECORATED NAVY VET & RESPECTED GOP SENATOR ENDORSES PRESIDENT'S STATE-OF-THE-UNION GOALS"
Are you having trouble seeing which scenario would be more helpful getting Obama's socialist schemes passed?
If the situation was reversed, as a Republican President would you rather have Zell Miller lobbying for your causes, or Bob Ney?
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.