LMAO!!! I knew this argument had to come up sooner or later. It's on the standard talking points memo of every Kirk supporter. We explain to you that we oppose Kirk because he agrees with Democrats on the MAJORITY of issues, and you come back and argue we're against Kirk because we only support Republicans who agree with us 100% of the time.
How do you explain the fact I supported Scott Brown then? Or Norm Coleman? Or Mike Dewine? How about the FACT I only voted for McCain for President in 2008, but campaign for him (check the FR achieves) if you don't believe me. How about the fact I've been rooting for Joseph Cao in Louisiana? Do you think I agree with all those people "100%" of the time? More strawman arguements. Why must Kirk supporters always resort to lies in order to promote Mark Kirk?
Again, let me remind you the only one demanding "100% purity" is Kirk supporters. Kirk supporters resort to demonizing conservative activists who routinely support 90% of the Republicans on the ballot. But that's not good enough for you, is it? You demand we support 100% of the Republican nominees, and if you refuse to do so you spread a smear campaign that we're all Democrat moles, traitors, Harry Reid supporters, etc., etc.
It's interesting how you so richly represent the very thing you accuse other people of being. If you want to see a narrow-minded Republican who demands 100% purity from other Republicans, look in the mirror.
“Why must Kirk supporters always resort to lies in order to promote Mark Kirk?”
Because the truth does nothing but hurt their pet leftist?