Granny,
Get up to speed. Kirk changed his position on cap and trade several months ago after hearing from his constituents (yours truly included).
Yes, he’s a liberal, but do you think that a 55 ACU rating is as bad as most dems, including Alexi Buttboy?
To the people who don’t vote: you might as well be dems because they benefit from moderates and conservatives sitting out elections.
neocon1984, if you've been following Kirk's record as a constituent of his, you might "Get up to speed" with the fact he NEVER deviated from his far-left wing record until faced a primary challenger for the first time in a decade. If you can name ANY other past occasion in the last decade where Kirk was doing something socialist and then backed off because the GOP voters in his district complained, feel free to let me know.
Kirk was unopposed from 2001-2007, so he screwed over Republicans royally (betraying us on Iraq, limited government, bailouts, amnesty, etc.) and faced no repercussions for it. The man STILL refuses to budge from his extremist pro-partial birth abortion views, even though around 80% of Americans not just Republican voters oppose partial birth abortion. He'd have nothing to lose from dropping his support for this heinous procedure. Any voter who is THAT militantly pro-abortion and only support candidates who share their "values" is in the extreme minority of general election voters and is a guaranteed safe Democrat voter no matter what Kirk's position.
Kirk subsequently won the primary by nearly 60% of the vote, so that just emboldens him to screw over Republicans even more thinking he can do so with impunity. In case you missed it, Kirk has now flip-flopped on his primary campaign pledges to "lead the fight to overturn Obamacare" (he now actually "regrets" signing the Club for Growth pledge to work to repeal it), and his pledge to vote for "the Republican position" to keep terrorists in Gitmo. Obviously, the only people Kirk has been "listening to" lately are leftists.
What else will he betray Republicans on? What's to stop him from flipping back to his old Cap n' Trade position after November, claiming that his primary campaign position was good for Illinois but not good for the U.S. as a whole? Or claim that the "old" version of the cap n' trade legislation was "flawed" but the "new" version is "moderate and bipartisan" so he can support it now?
Bear mind that if Kirk wins in November, he can then do whatever he wants for the next six years without going before voters again.
Kirk throwing you a table scrap during the primary because he was afraid he'd lose to a real Republican for the first time in his career doesn't excuse his decade long record of treason. As a constituent in his district, you should know better than anyone else that Kirk has screwed over conservatives time and time again. How many times does it take before you get the message he can't be trusted?