Here’s a link that works:
http://exposingtheleft.blogspot.com/
Mark Kirk is uninspiring, that’s for sure. Illinois conservatives will have to vote for him with their nostrils firmly plugged.
Good job. I’ll vote for Kirk because he’s a hell of a lot better than the alternative. And like a football coach once impressed upon me and my teammates - “when crap meets crap, someone still has to win, and it better be you!”.
I honestly don’t care what a candidate stands on most social issues. As long as they are fiscally conservative, we will live to fight those battles another day. Mark Kirk passes all the fiscal tests, and flunks all the social ones. Gianoulias fails both. Simple as that.
If only the majority of non-leftist, Illinois voters would, actually, vote for Randy Stufflebeam, instead!
Great job and thanks for the report!
I'm looking over your questions now and they look fairly softball questions to me. I've seen some rather hard hitting questions where Kirk has gotten fluttered and I'm not seeing it from you. I suppose your paraphrasing, but it seems the topics were vague enough that Kirk could make whatever his record is sound good on the surface.
>> 1. How can a US Senator possibly effect the onerous taxes presently inflicted on the citizens of Illinois. (Blago crap and spin but basically nodda) Fair answer. Ans. He really can't. <<<
More to the point, since "he really can't" why is running campaign ads about the tax climate within Illinois and implying a vote for him will change that? Isn't he intruding on Bill Brady's campaign turf? I don't see Brady running ads about policies that only U.S. Senators can affect, like saying we need to elect Brady governor so Obama's judges can be stopped.
>> 2.Is there anything you can do in Washington to moderate the present situation in Illinois to improve the business climate. Ans. Support Bill Brady. <<
Again, more to the point, since Kirk had said he "supports" Brady, why he has not lifted a finger to DO anything to help him? Why is Kirk AWOL at Brady events? Why won't Kirk speak out publicly in favor of the rest of the GOP ticket? It's a legitimate question. Jason Plummer, Dan Rutherford, Steve Kim, etc. actually DO make an effort to support Brady and the rest of the GOP ticket, not claim offhand that they endorse his candidacy.
>> 3. Illegal immigration , your stance? <<
What kind of question is this?! That's like asking "Wasteful spending, what is your stance?" "Corrupt politicians, what is your stance?" Everyone on the planet will say they're against it. Ditto with the topic of illegal immigration. All politicians will claim to be against, including those who lobby for amnesty for illegals (they will say that "comprehensive immigration reform" and "a path to citizenship" will solve the problem since the individuals in question will no longer be illegal)
A more pointed question would be "You've repeatedly said in the past you oppose illegal immigration. Why then did you vote against legislation that would require hospitals to report illegal aliens, support the 245(i) mini amnesty, and oppose the Arizona law that follows the federal guidelines for border enforcement?
>> 4. Abortion Ans I support a womens right of choice.(OUCH) <<
A very vague question. We all know Kirk "supports a woman's right to choose". The media would have us believe Kirk is a centrist on the issue and believes Roe v. Wade should be kept on the books but is not nuts about abortion. His record says otherwise. A pointed would be:
"Congressman, you've often described yourself as a social moderate. However, in the last two election cycles, the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) reported that you were the only Republican in the House who voted with them 100% of the time, even supporting partial-birth abortion when polls show over 70% of Americans oppose it. Why do you feel your support for abortion on demand is a "socially moderate" position when the vast majority of American voters are not as liberal as you? If you're moderate, what restrictions do you think should be allowed for underage girls seeking abortions and third trimester abortions, if any?"
>> My comment: But who stands up for the unborn's choice? Ans: The Supreme court. <<
My comment: By confirming Elena Kagan, Congressman? She's "moderate" in your eyes, right?
>> What separates you from Giannoulias? Ans: Fiscal conservatism. Reduce taxes to stimulate the economy, especialy on small business. <<
Followup: Fiscally conservative organizations report that you voted with Taxpayers for Common Sense 33% of the time, The Club for Growth 19% of the time (9 / 48 votes), and Citizens for Tax Justice 17% of the time, Congressman. They do this for a living and dispute that you are a "fiscal conservative". Furthermore, do you believe your votes in favor of Democrat Charlie Rangel’s 90 percent bonus tax, the Democrats SCHIP program, and TARP bailouts were fiscally conservative? Do you feel Alexi would have voted differently than you on these purely fiscal issues?
>> 5.Everything being equal, in your estimation, what percentage of the time would you vote with conservative Republicans. Connection lost, damn. <<
Had Kirk been able to respond, he would have (falsely) told you he votes "the Republican position" 80% of the time and cite some BS Congressional quarterly review of a bunch of issues introduced by Republican Congressmen like "House Resolution expressing the sense of the House that Hitler was a bad man", which everyone agreed with anyway.
If Kirk was speaking to a liberal audience, he'd spend the entire time talking about how he "Stood up to President Bush and the right wing Republicans", and gloat about how left-wing organizations rate him more liberal than Obama.
The actual numbers, without all the smoke and mirrors, is that Kirk votes with the GOP on wedge issues about 20-30% of the time. That's worse than many card-carrying Democrats. True, he's not as liberal as Alexi, HOWEVER, Kirk will be FAR more effective than Alexi in getting Obama's marxist positions rammed down our throats the other 70-80% of the time.
>> I'll vote for him, not thrilled but there it is. <<
Mark Kirk has shown over the past 10 years that if you elect him to the Senate, you'll basically get the reincarnation of Jim Jeffords. He will side with the left the vast majority of key issues and be THE instrumental goto guy when Obama needs a "Republican" sponsor to mask his radical agenda for American and pretend it has "bipartisan" support. If you're comfortable with that for the next six years, feel free to vote for him. As for me personally, I wouldn't support Kirk for dog catcher.
Seriously, do NOT vote for him. He will not block Obama’s judges. He will not repeal Obamacare. All he will do is give Obama the veneer of bipartisanship and form a voting block with Lindsey Graham and the Maine RINOS to pull more Republicans to the left, and then leave the Republicans to blame for it all. Don’t believe me? Graham himself said as much. We are far, far better off with 49 Republicans and 51 caucusing Democrats than we would be with 51 Republicans, including Kirk and Castle, and 49 caucusing Democrats.
Would you hand US uniforms and guns to Nazi soldiers, and invite them to intelligence briefings, and place them behind our front lines just to have more “Allied” soldiers? Of course not. So why would you have Kirk and Castle caucus with the Republicans just to have more Republicans? ]
I won't vote for either of the ultra liberals on the ballot.
DEFEAT MARK KIRK !!
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.
Did any other conservatives ask him difficult questions? If so, what were they?
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.
Barf.