Posted on 10/07/2010 8:49:15 PM PDT by Inyokern
In 2010, the citizens of Illinois should send to the Capitol a senator who will bring expertise and independence. The candidate who fits that bill is Mark Kirk.
Today the Tribune endorses Kirk, a Republican, for the U.S. Senate seat that Roland Burris soon vacates. To understand our verdict, watch Giannoulias and Kirk's appearance before us this week. You'll find the video at chicagotribune.com/senate. Judge each man's depth and preparedness for the job. Judge knowledge and scope. Judge accomplishment. Judge which candidate has a proven record of thoughtful independence — of bucking his party when the good of this nation is at stake. You won't have difficulty making these judgments.
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
Let me explain how things work. If Kirk wins and the Republicans win the Senate then they get a majority on the Senate Judiciary Committee (which approves judges) and it gets the chairmanship of that committee.
Do you understand how huge that is regarding who gets on the Supreme Court? Regardless of whether both of them are pro-abortion, it DOES make a difference who wins.
Now you are just being silly. He has been a Republican congressman for 5 terms from a district that is rather liberal. If he were going to change parties, he would have done it already.
Laugh all you like. They say it's good for your heart and circulation. Cackle if you wish. I don't hold myself to be a better conservative than anybody else. If I am, I am and if I'm not, I'm not. I am, however, a better conservative than many and certainly a better conservative than those who would inflict baby-killing lavender queen "GOP" senators on this state and nation in order to grub a few more pennies for themselves and themselves alone out of tax cuts on the skyscraper share of your income. As I previously posted, you (on that portion of your income alone) have already reaped a massive tax cut courtesy of social conservatives supporting Reagan and not caring a whit about your money-grubbing obsessions nor benefiting from those obsessions or your tax breaks. The babies continue to be sliced, diced and hamburgerized, thanks to ideological traitors to Republicanism like Nancyboy and you who provide Queen Nancyboy with knee-jerk support and adulation.
Cutting taxes on families of modest means should come first. Virtually the entire Congress, Demonrat and Republican agree on those cuts. If the GOP is genuinely stupid enough to risk the loss of the overwhelming outrage of the public to take care of spoiled overfed whiny crybabies like you, then the GOP (and the nation) will pay the price in 2012 and Comrade Obamao will probably get four more years to nominate social revolutionaries and baby-killers to SCOTUS and to bring an end to our civilization and the finest country this world has ever seen.
You post as though there is something wrong with strategically electing Giannoulias instead of hypocritically making believe that Nancyboy is some kind of Republican. If Nancyboy is a Republican so is George McGovern. Giannouilias is a lightweight and easily disposed of in many ways BUT NOT BY KIRK or anything like him. In Illinois, the first order of business is destroying the Combine, its marionettes like Nancyboy and their willing windtunnel servants. (Oh, Muffy, those conservatives are just awwwwful! They don't mind electing Democrats so they can take OUR political party away from US! AND, they don't care about OUR tax cuts! AND they care about babies and guns, Oh, ick!, Muffer, they just make my head hurt!) Then and only then will Illinois have a Republican Party. Then and only then can Illinois do its part for America. Conservatives cannot and will not trade the lives of any more babies for tax cuts for the impossibly and relentlessly greedy at the top.
"You are just a petulant child who, if he doesn't get 100% of what he wants, takes his ball and goes home." I don't understand the technology of computers well enough to insert your quotes but you need to get back on your meds if that sentence has any meaning to you. Or you need to get back to the mental hospital for a tuneup. Everyone will benefit if the Bush tax cuts are extended at $250,000 income or less. You just don't get that delicious maraschino cherry on top of your sundae and for guys like you the ice cream and chocolate sauce and whipped cream are just not enough as they should be for mere mortals whose income is less than yours. You want your taxes cut. If the babies must keep being slaughtered, who cares, right? If marriage, as an institution, is destroyed by perversion posing as "marriage", so what, right? If guns are grabbed and the peasants disarmed, it's only sensible, right? If wars are lost and military are killed, well that doesn't effect you so why should you care and, besides, it might allow for further tax cuts for the spoiled and greedy, right, saving all that money by letting our enemies run wild and unobstructed? That's Nancyboy's foreign policy too. You want those damned upper bracket tax cuts as passionately as Princess Lisa Mookowski wants HER hereditary senate seat. Her Daddy used to have it. He appointed her to it and, gosh darn it, its hers, HERS!!! do we understand! WHO is a petulant child??? You can have the ball and puhleeeeeze just go home but we are taking the senate seat back the hard way. Lieberman was a great replacement for trash like Lowell Weicker. We took Weicker's senate seat from him and Nancyboy isn't getting one to begin with. Somehow, I do not remember Ronaldus Maximus campaigning for Weicker after 1968 when Weicker ran for Congress as a conservative (probable former Bircher) on the genuinely conservative money of Gordon Reed, the Milbanks and the Middendorfs. Weicker stabbed all of those guys in the back. They raised or gave $600,000 to Reagan's 1966 campaign for California governor. He came to Connecticut simply because those guys asked him to come. Planned Barrenhood Goldwater came to Connecticut pleading for Weicker in his hour of need as did Orrin Hatch and we told them both to go home and mind their own business.
I don't claim to be a better conservative than you are. That comparative does not apply since you are not a conservative at all. Nor is Nancyboy Kirk and he does not know what goes where on top of his sorry voting record and life. I am and have been a conservative activist for more than fifty years on a wide range of issues (in which context, your level of taxation on your marginal income is near the bottom of any sensible list of ideological priorities) and I have the resume to show for it. You don't have one which is why you dare not try to post one.
And stop the rank dishonesty about "extending the Bush tax cuts." The only Bush tax cuts in question are those which apply on income over $250,000 per year. The only other cuts in jeopardy would be the end of the marriage penalty which IS a war worth fighting because the marriage penalty frosts the cookies of the anti-marriage set. OTOH, lavender hoopla posing as marriage has NO right to favorable tax treatment as though it were somehow equivalent to marriage. Somehow neither you nor Nancyboy seem to understand that. I can formulate my own positions far more accurately than you can formulate them for me. I care very much about the taxes of Americans. I care but much less in comparison as to what YOU have to pay on income above $250,000 per year. People who think that conservatism exists to lower your taxes on that high income to the exclusion of far more important issues like guns, babies, marriage, military, etc., are parasites on the conservative body politic. Depriving them of that desire may become necessary to teach them some manners and remind them of real world priorities. They are all hat and no cattle, as they say in Texas.
Lowell Weicker was a GOP Congressman for a term and a senator for three terms and we MADE him change parties to independent. We can probably convince Nancyboy that his future lies somewhere other than in the GOP and somewhere other than Illinois: Greenwich Village, San Fransicko, Fire Island??? Any of them will do and Nancyboy will more easily blend in. He could be a “Log Cabin” Demonrat and a more honest fellow.
Awww, shucks! Thanks again.
It certainly makes a difference who wins. And a Giannoulias win serves movement purposes as a Kirk win cannot and will not. Also, bear in mind that when it comes to US Attorneys and judges, Kirk would be striving for the appointment of social revolutionaries because to do so is tres chic in Naperville. (Nancyboy to applicant: Do you, the prospective appointee, support interspecies sexual relations with reptiles and space aliens even the ones not named Judy Bahr Toooopinka? If not, what makes a narrow-minded bigot like you think you are qualified to serve on a federal court?) So what if they both want to kill babies, just elect the REPUBLICAN babykiller and get that issue out of politics. The only real issue is how much Inyokern pays in taxes on his marginal income above $250,000, right???
Besides party affiliation, and based soley upon his VOTES and not his WORDS, tell us all how your pet liberal Kirk is different from his opponent in oh say...5 ways.
“He has been a Republican congressman for 5 terms”
Arlen Spectre was a Republican from 1965 until switching to the Democratic Party in 2009.
Jim Jeffords was a REpublican from 1989 until 2001.
Try again.
Well, obviously that settles it. If we re-elect Senator Specter in 2004, there's absolutely no way he would EVER switch to the Democrat Party. To even suggest the idea is just plain ridiculous. Specter had amble opportunity to switch before, like during the Watergate Democrat landslide of '74, and would have switched at that time if he wasn't a loyal Republican.
Furthermore, Senator Specter already voted AGAINST Hillarycare, so there's absolutely NO way he would support socialized medicine. Re-electing Senator guarantees the Democrats won't have 60 votes to pass socialized medicine. A vote for Specter is also a vote against activist judges. Specter has repeatedly said he will oppose a Democrat judge outside the mainstream, and will be a Republican vote in the Senate against a future Democrat nominee. We need him on the judiciary committee to stop a future Democrat president from ramming through a radical judge like Elena Kagan.
Finally, let's remember that Pennsylvania is a DEEP BLUE STATE. Therefore, you have to be completely delusional if you think Pat Toomey can get elected in that state. Pennsyvania voted for Clinton twice, Gore, and Kerry. Believe me I'd love it if we could elect a Jim DeMint type candidate in Pennsylvania, but the fact is RINOs are the only kinds of Republicans who can win a state like that. Pat Toomey will never, EVER be Senator.
< / Kirk supporter logic >
Aren't we lucky that voters accepted the "wisdom" of the RINO supporters here?
Nope just another Republican who won a primary. Someone who lives under RAT control understands that we cannot afford more of them. Even your bile can’t change that fact.
Anything which upsets the Democrat apple cart is good even if it means Kirk. He is much preferable to The Greek.
You are dreaming if you believe The Greek would be indicted and removed. If the RATS remain in control of the Senate he would not be removed even if indicted.
Most of us learned from history after seeing how only the left benefited from "Republicans" like Jeffords, Chafee, and Specter in power. But you still can't accept that. How many times do RINOs have to deliver for the RATs before you figure it out?
“He is much preferable to The Greek.”
Other than party affiliation and based soley upon his (Kirks) votes in congress, can you explain the 5 major differences between the two?
Don't even waste your time with "Black Elk" and his crew. I am convinced they are just a bunch of phonies who came from Democratic Underground or some left wing site like that to stir up trouble and demoralize us.
What conservative in his right mind would not want to put a Republican in BARACK OBAMA'S FORMER SENATE SEAT, even if that Republican is not as conservative as we might like?
Frankly, if I were Jim Robinson, I would kick their asses out of here. They are telling people to vote for Alexi Giannoulias, an Obama clone. Their only goal seems to be to keep the Republicans from gaining a majority in the Senate.
You know, it really irks me when people go around attacking other freepers and don’t even show the courtesy of a ping. You are sadly mistaken if you think these longtime conservative freepers are “a bunch of phonies who came from Democratic Underground or some left wing site”.
There is a high level of disgust at the current Republican Party establishment for pushing liberal candidates and then browbeating voters to support them. Your tactics only expand that level of disgust and push people further away from the GOP.
Yeah, well there is a high level of disgust with people like you who try to browbeat people into voting against the Republican -- in a race that is very close and could decide the Senate majority.
Your tactics only expand that level of disgust and push people further away from the GOP.
I am not going to apologize for supporting the Republican in this race. I'm just not going to do it. If you don't like it then just go away.
By the way, I have sent money to the GOP Trust and to Sharron Angle's campaign. I do not ONLY support moderates like Kirk but WILL support him when he is our nominee. I want Obama's Senate seat in Republican hands so bad I can taste it. I have no time for defeatists and troublemakers like you.
Hear, hear!!
Of course, that is a lie. I did no such thing. In fact, I said the opposite.
I am not going to apologize for supporting the Republican in this race. I'm just not going to do it. If you don't like it then just go away.
Nor would I expect you to. However, I do think an apology is in order for all of the unwarranted allegations you have made against other freepers just because they choose to disagree with your choices.
Oh piss off.
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.