Skip to comments.Hugh Hewitt Endorses RINO: Sacrificing Principles for a Win?
Posted on 05/15/2009 7:18:50 AM PDT by chicagolady
click here to read article
Very good thread. I wasn’t aware of most of this, and Kirk is def. a RINO. He’s probably taking the name of Republican because he couldn’t get it up, ah , sorry, get up in the already controlled Chicago Democratic structure.
Hugh Hewitt is a weasel, vastly overrated as a radio guy, he has that smarminess of a liberal, frankly. The arrogance with nothing of substance behind it or justifying it. Sorry, Hugh, you’re a RINO, and you continue to prove it with each passing day.
Did Cisco (Cotto) weigh in on the Hewitt “endorsement”?
Easy now, folks. I mean, what’s wrong with an utter disregard for principle if it can lead to a win. After all, the selling out of our beliefs rewarded us with Arlen Specter, Lincoln Chaffee, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe....If we had stubbornly refused to betray the nation and the American people, why, terrible things might have happened. Liberals could have been elected. Right?!
Has a conservative announced, or is Kirk’s charisma, media manufactured of course, scaring them off?
As a logical person myself, I cannot explain it nor can I claim to understand it, but it is definitely a fact.
The likeability factor carried Bush over Kerry just as it carried ObaMao over McCain with this group. McCain's pathetic debate performance (My friends, this, my friends, that) versus ObaMao's polished debate performance was a huge factor as well.
While it is true that the feeeeelers tend to be easily swayed by the enemedia, the point is that a RINO is not going to win them over, unless it is a RINO with greater likeability and communication skills. In which case a conservative with greater likeability and communication skills will work just as well on this demographic AND will inspire the base.
I'd estimate that the feeeeelers make up a solid majority of the mushy middle, perhaps even as much as two-thirds. And while a portion of that group can be influenced by logic and idealogy, just as a portion of we logical thinkers can be influenced by feelings, these are going to take a back seat.
America, by and large, did not reject conservatism in 2008; they rejected a lousy RINO salesman.
Mark Kirk is my congressman and I have consistently voted for him. He is to the left of the conservative movement, but far to the right of the union Democrat (Dan Seals) who has run very close races against him. I would rather have a centrist Republican than another (far leftie) like Jan Schackowski in the House. She’s in the neighboring district.
A conservative that satisfies the Freeper audience cannot win this purple district or any statewide offices in Illinois.
Can anyone name the last statewide office held by a conservative? Don’t say “Peter Fitzgerald”. He was a libertarian who only beat Carol Mostly Fraud because he had his own (family) money. When Fitz retired after a single term, due to lack of popular support (including conservatives ) we got ... (wait for it) ... BARACK OBAMA.
Rosanna, what percentage of the vote did you get in your last run for office? IIRC, it was under 40%. Yeah, that’s who we need to be listening to in Illinois.
Look at this disgrace...
A VETERAN throwing VETERANS UNDER THE BUS!!
RINO alert addition N to all RINOs. “CRIST No” to ours in Florida. Push for Marco Rubio, Conservative.
No to your KIRK...
With a month to campaign, going against the Mayor Richard Daley Obama Machine I got 40% of the vote in the Suburbs,
How many people Voted for YOU ARM CHAIR WARRIOR?
BTW, I think that Hewitt has always been a RINO, so this doesn't surprise me in the least.
Wow! That much in the suburbs. If you counted the city, that might put you at about 15-20%. Even Don and /or Roma could do better. You obviously did not impress anyone in your interview on their radio show. It is obvious that the alternative Rosanna provides is about as likely to win in Illinois as Ron Paul is to become POTUS. Keep trying to sabotage people like Mark Kirk. Soon we will have 100% Democrats running and/or representing the State of Illinois.
I was curious whether he would “bite the hand that feeds him”. Guess not.
Looks like neocon1984 is solidly in the “any R who will WIN” column. You get what you vote for...
Ok Mr. ARM CHAIR WARRIOR
Federal “Hate Crimes” Bill a Money-Making Scheme According to Homosexual Activist
Mark KIRK promotes Hate Crime Legislation
My very first post here at FR was saying pretty much the same thing,
Hugh Hewitt is always working to massage his audience just a little more to the left no matter what the year or what the issue.
You make excellent points.
Like most Freepers, we’d all like it if Kirk’s voting record were more conservative - but given the leanings of his district, we’re damned lucky to have anyone with a R behind his name holding that seat.
If Mark Kirk makes it to the Senate, is he gonna cast votes that will irritate the hell out of us?
But will he vote more conservatively than Jan Schakowsky or Lisa Madigan?
Is Mark Kirk gonna be a thorn in the side of the GOP like Arlen Specter was?
What Hewitt is saying is that we sometimes have to grimace and accept candidates that may not always be as conservative as we’d like them to be.
Because the alternative is considerably (no, a lot) worse.
Thanks for your thoughts, BUT,
His voting record is the same as any Democrat
Mark Kirk supports the unconstitutional hate-crime legislation. Mark also intends to disarmlaw abiding Americans. In fact here are some of KIRKS record on other key issues.
In 2005, Citizens for Global Solutions gave Representative Kirk a rating of A.
In 2006, the National Rifle Association assigned Representative Kirk a grade of F.
Based on information available in 2006, Sierra Club chose to endorse Representative Kirk.
Based on information available in 2006, Planned Parenthood chose to endorse Representative Kirk.
Representative Kirk voted their preferred position of Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence 100% in 2002.
Representative Kirk supported the interests of the NARAL 100% in 2005.
Representative Kirk supported the interests of the National Council of La Raza 100% in 2004.
If you've consistently voted for Mark Kirk, you might as well vote for half the Democrats in this state, since many of them are as equally liberal or less liberal than him. My DEMOCRAT State Rep. is considerably to the right of your guy Kirk -- for example there's both gun-grabbers, but my guy is opposed to abortion and gay unions, which is more than you get out of Kirk. You say Kirk is "far to the right" of Dan Seals, eh? Care to point to some major issues where Kirk is "far right" of him? I can think of only two votes out of a dozen major issues where they differed -- tax cuts and Obama's porkulus bill. (in the latter case, Kirk didn't "oppose" it until after the election when the House leadership twisted his arm. During the campaign, he all for billion dollar "bailouts" and pork-filled "stimulus" plans) Give that fact, it looks like they agree roughly 80% of the time. In some cases, Kirk actually ran to the LEFT of Obama clone Seals, gloating how the Sierra Club rates him "better than Obama". A Republican who is proud he's more radical than Obama is? Scary stuff.
>> I would rather have a centrist Republican than another (far leftie) like Jan Schackowski in the House. Shes in the neighboring district. <<
So lemme get this straight... Citizens for Global Solutions gives Kirk an A., the NRA gives him an "F", Planned Parenthood gives him 100% rating, the Brady Bunch Gun Grabber crowd says he votes with them 100%, NARAL gives him 100%, La Raza rates him 100%... and that's the voting record of a "centrist"? I know plenty of people who consider themselves "middle of the road" squishes who don't agree with my views on those issues, but not ONE of them would support Kirk's radical left-wing extreme views. He's on the exact opposite end of the spectrum. Kirk doesn't support a few types of "reasonable" gun control, he supports confiscation of all guns. Kirk doesn't support allowing legal abortion in certain circumstances, he supporting killing 9-month infants as their being born. If that's your idea of "moderate", what's liberal? I don't think you can get further left than Kirk.
I'm pretty sure Jan Schakowsky got the exact same ratings from those liberal groups, and she does indeed represent a leftie district full of moonbats. Kirk represents a district that's 50% Republican, yet he votes like Schakowsky anyway. That says alot more about Kirk than it does about his district.
>> A conservative that satisfies the Freeper audience cannot win this purple district or any statewide offices in Illinois. <<
While I agree someone as conservative as me would likely to be to the right of the overall constituency of the 10th district and have a tough time winning there, I certainly think someone more conservative than the likes of Mark Kirk could "win" that district, as well as statewide. Survey's show over 70% of the general public completely supports banning partial-birth abortion, yet your boy Kirk is with the radical 15-20% of the population that was against the ban. You really think he needs to take extreme left positions like that to "win"? Kirk is to the LEFT of his constituents, as well as to the LEFT of Illinois voters in general, on many key issues.
>> Can anyone name the last statewide office held by a conservative? Dont say Peter Fitzgerald. He was a libertarian <<
Peter Fitzgerald. No, he was not a libertarian, he was a self-described "traditional Reaganite" who was strongly pro-life, pro-family, and for a strong national defense.
>> who only beat Carol Mostly Fraud because he had his own (family) money. <<
Repeating media talking points I see. Never mind the fact we haven't even RUN a strong conservative since 2004. All the recent Republicans to go down in flames in this state were so-called "electable" moderates like Toopinka/Sauerberg/McCain.
Pre-November 1998: Fitzgerald WILL NEVER WIN Illinois because he is TOO FAR RIGHT to EVER be ELECTABLE in a moderate state like Illinois.
Post-November 1998: ::shrugs:: Sure, Fitzy beat Moseley-Braun, but ANY Republican would have taken her out because she was so vunerable. Besides, Fitzgerald bought the election.
>>> When Fitz retired after a single term, due to lack of popular support (including conservatives ) we got ... (wait for it) ... BARACK OBAMA. <<
Fitz retired due to the fact the "moderate" Andy McKombine/Judas Toopinka/Ray LaThug crowd were prefer a RAT over a principled conservative, and thus were planning to "take him out" in the primary and Fitz didn't want to go into the general election with one hand tied behind his back with the party "leadership" rooting for the RAT. But if you're trying to make a case that some conservatives wouldn't support Fitz either, you are correct. There were a handful of purists in the old "cut off your nose to spit in your face" crowd saying he "deserved" to lose because he voted the wrong way on some gun-bills, ANWR drilling, and campaign-finance reform (even though he had a lifetime conservative record of 91%) Of course they weren't "the" reason he's out of office, you find those types in every state (see Jon Kyl haters for more examples) >>
Rosanna, what percentage of the vote did you get in your last run for office? IIRC, it was under 40%. Yeah, thats who we need to be listening to in Illinois. <<
Yes, she got under 40%, which is not surprising given that most of the district is in Chicago and it's over 60% DemocRAT, not to mention the state and national party wouldn't lift a finger to help her. She did finish several points higher than the Mark Kirk-type RINO (a self described "liberal Republican") who was the previous GOP nominee in that district. Hmmm.
Hey, what percentage did "centrist" Steve Sauerberg get when he was on the top of the ticket for Illinois Republicans last year? As I recall, the RINO won a pathetic three counties and finished worse than Alan Keyes (and Keyes had the excuse of being an 11th hour replacement candidate from out of state). Yep, those "centrists" are just so darn popular with voters, don't they? Incidentally, you will note that squishy "middle of the road" centrist Steve Sauerberg is not as bad as Kirk is on the issues. That's because Kirk is not a centrist. He's a liberal.
His district is drawn to be about half Republican. Bush won 47% there in 2000, Gore won 51%. The district has been held by Republicans since 1980. Republicans to the right of Kirk have won handily within the district. One of the most notably examples is Tony Peracia (a McCain type Republican who is disliked by the conservative base but considerably to the right of Kirk on social issues) won the Cook County portion of Kirk's district handily in 2006 when he ran for County Board President. Of the three counties in the district, Cook is home to Chicago and by far the most liberal of the three.
>> If Mark Kirk makes it to the Senate, is he gonna cast votes that will irritate the hell out of us? <<
Yes on a weekly basis, along with Durbin.
>> But will he vote more conservatively than Jan Schakowsky or Lisa Madigan? <<
No. I can't think of any major issue where Kirk or Madigan disagree. On any issue that he USED to vote conservative on, like tax cuts and the WOT, he has since renounced them and moved left since 2006 to endear himself to the RAT majority. He now hates Bush/Cheney as much as Schakowsky. Kirk can't even think of any major issues where he disagrees with the RATs. During his 2000 "debate" with moderate-liberal Lauren Beth Gash, the two couldn't think of a single issue the moderator brought up that they disagreed on, so they started arguing about who had stronger roots in the district instead ("I was born here!" "Oh yeah, but I lived here the last 20 years and you haven't! Nah nah!") Read transcripts if you don't believe me.
>> Is Mark Kirk gonna be a thorn in the side of the GOP like Arlen Specter was? <<
No. Kirk will be worse. Specter votes conservative about 40% of the time, you won't even get that much with Kirk. For example, Specter got some pretty good ratings from gun groups. Kirk has an F record from gun-groups. Kirk is likely to be another Linc Chafee type, voting with us maybe 20-30% on a good day. If that's acceptable, you might as well campaign for Mark Pryor for Senate.
>> What Hewitt is saying is that we sometimes have to grimace and accept candidates that may not always be as conservative as wed like them to be. Because the alternative is considerably (no, a lot) worse. <<
Oh, I agree with that point, and if Kirk were a real "moderate" who is not always conservative as I'd like him to be, but clearly better than the RAT, I'd support him. There are many examples of that, like Norm Coleman. Not as conservative as me, but votes conservative 70% of the time while Al Franken is conservative about 5% of the time. Unfortunately, Kirk is not one of those cases.
Let's say Dan Seals had won in November 2006 and taken out Kirk, serving from Jan. 2007-Jan. 2009. On what major issues would "Congressman Seals" have voted differently on?
You don't know much about IL politics, do you ?
Fitzgerald a “libertarian” and not a conservative? I don’t know where you get that neocon1984. He is a social conservative if that’s what you mean.
He did very well downstate against CMB. I’m not so sure a Kirk type would have done as well. Old lady Didrickson I guess she would have won too but Fitzgerald provided a much bigger contrast and certainly rallied the base better. Conservatives not bothering to vote for RINOs is a problem for Illinois Republicans.
I’d vote for Kirk over (insert scumbag) but a lot of IL conservatives will not. The pro-partial birth abortion stance is particularly harmful.
You were not paying attention. Fitzgerald was not going to win re-election by any stretch of the imagination. He angered people of all stripes because he was so independent. For example, he was the one who nominated the other Fitzgerald (a NY Democrat) for US Attorney. You know, the guy who persecuted Rove and Scooter Libby.
If Fitzgerald did not have family money, he would have hard a hard time beating Mostly Fraud because he was not getting a lot of financial support from Illinois conservatives and Republicans. After all, he was not a telegenic or dynamic figure (whiny voice and all).
IMHO, he was a good senator, and I fully agree with his libertarian positions.
Your incredulousness is either disingenuous or reflects your willful ignorance. (Probably both).
I agree on most of your points. The partial birth abortion issue is very harmful to Kirk.
Fitzgerald had some social conservative views. However, people forget that he was truly a maverick who mostly focused on less government in all aspects of our lives. In my mind that is a libertarian point of view.
I live in Kirk’s district, and I agree with Bill. I’ve never voted for Kirk. Since my choices were a liberal with a “D,” by his name and a liberal with an “R,” by his name, I skip that section of the ballot.
Illinois Republicans need to nominate conservatives, for all statewide races, in 2010. In 2008, Dr. Sauerberg was moderate. He won his primary, but, in the general election, he got 33%. In 2006, then-Treasurer Topinka was moderate. She won her primary, and, in the general election, she got 38%.
U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald (no relation to the man who appointed him) is enormously popular with Illinois conservatives, unlike national conservatives where he is despised. That's because national conservatives are ignorant and base their entire opinion of the man based on the Scooter Libby case, and have no clue that "partisan Democrat" Patrick Fitzgerald has indicted and imprisoned dozens of Democrat machine politicians, including the highest ranking circles of Daley's henchmen. Go on IllinoisReview and other forums for Illinois conservatives, and you'd see that his appointment was applauded by Illinois conservatives because the combine was against it. A lot of Illinois conservatives want Patrick Fitzgerald to run for Governor.
Yes, the fact Fitzgerald is very wealthy and was able to self-fund his campaign was instrumental in ensuring he'd win -- and you know why? Because the RINO infested party leadership refused to spent one cent on him and wrote him off as "unelectable" after he won the primary. If the state party would play ball with conservatives, they wouldn't have to spend vast amounts of their own money to be competitive.
Given the recent showing by Sauerberg and Topinka, seems to me that "centrists" have shown absolutely no evidence they are magically more "electable" than conservatives. Topinka was a well known statewide elected official running against an unpopular governor and Sauerberg was a very wealthy medical doctor running against a Senator that Illinoisans were indifferent on, and one that had hurt his re-election prospects by comparing our troops to NAZIs.
So Illinois Republicans gave the "centrists" their chance. What's their excuse for losing in a landslide?
Let's compare where they stand on major issues:
Kirk supports taxpayer funded abortion being allowed in any and every circumstance, including late trimester and partial-birth abortions most of the general public opposes. He gets perfect ratings from NARAL. Schakowsky votes the same way, and Seals took the same position. I think there a handful of circumstances where Lisa Madigan has opposed abortion, so she might actually be to the right of Kirk on this (though she is considerably to the left of her nominally “pro-life” father)
Kirk is cosponsoring a major anti-gun bill right now and has consistently supported every piece of legislation designed to curtail gun-rights. He gets an A rating from the Sarah Brady campaign and an F from the NRA. Schakowsky, Seals, and Madigan have similar opinions on gun control.
Kirk claims to be “personally” be against “gay marriage”, but is opposed to any laws that would prevent it from being legalized. He favors “civil unions” instead, that would be create a defacto “gay marriage” and give it equal status and the exact same benefits of a traditional marriage, making it marriage in every way but name. He is supportive of “gay pride” events and takes great steps to hire openly gay staffers and make appearances with the gay community. The same position is taken by
Schakowsky, Seals, and Madigan. All of them are “officially” against gay marriage, as is Obama.
WAR ON TERROR
Kirk supported intervention in Afghanistan, but has since used the situation there as an excuse to attack Bush's leadership. He voted for the Iraq War, but now regrets it and Bush mislead him. Kirk vocally opposed the surge, and insisted it wouldn't work. He was the leader of a group of anti-war Republican who marched to the white house and demanded Bush withdraw the troops from Iraq immediately in 2007 because it was hurting the Republican Party. The whole “mislead about Iraq” talking point was also used by Madigan and Blagojevich. Seals took the exact same policy positions on the WOT during last year's campaign as Kirk. Schakowsky is slightly to the left of Kirk (and half of the Democrats) on this one, she opposed Iraq from the start)
Kirk claims that he opposes earmarks, but he ensured that his district got at least $5 million, each, for Headstart, HUD, commuter trains, and local police departments, although none of those subjects is mentioned, in the Constitution. He opposes earmarks, for other congressional districts, and he earmarks them, for his district. He supports all kinds of liberal feel good measures like wasting billions from embryonic stem cell search, fighting AIDS in Africa, giving money to the Palestine Authority, etc. He got a 100% A rating from Americans for the Arts and supported the interests of the Citizens Against Government Waste 33 percent in 2007. Seals also decried earmarks in other districts while promising to fund all kinds of pet projects in his. Not sure if Schakowsky ever denounced earmarks, but her spending levels on are par with Kirk's. Madigan has not taken a position on the issue.
Kirk got 100% rating from Hispanic supremacist group “La Raza” and F ratings from anti-illegal immigration groups. Freeper PhilCollins has heard credible evidence that Kirk visited the border and advised “undocumented” types how to sneak across the border. Seals and Schakowsky likewise supports a “path to citizenship” for illegals and embrace La Raza. Madigan has not taken a position on this.
Kirk votes down the line on the envirowacko agenda and has taken the lead on their pet projects. He believes global warming is man-made and is an eminent threat that we have to spend billions in government money to combat, opposes ANWR drilling and other kind of pro-buisness initiative that gets in the way of the tree huggers. The Sierra Club loves this guy. Obama got an 92% rating from them, Kirk voted to the left of Obama and got a 96% rating. Schakowsky got 100% rating. Seals and Madigan take the same positions as Kirk, but are not quite as extensive about it as Kirk is in his bragging.
Kirk supported all kinds of bailouts last year, including the big wall street bailout and the auto bailout. On the campaign trail, he welcomed spending zillions in borrowed money to “stimulate” the economy. He changed his mind at the last minute and opposed Obama’s porkulus bill, after arm-twisting from the GOP leadership. Lisa Madigan took similar positions in endorsing bailouts but being someone cautious on embracing this year's stimulus bill. Seals took the same position as Kirk last year, and has not made a statement on this year's bill .Schakowsky supported all bailout and stimulus intiatives.
Kirk is too busy attacking Bush and touting his own “independence” from evil right-wing Republicans to say anything negative about the likes of Durbin/Obama/Daley, etc. He has taken pot shots at Blago (given that Blago’s approval rating was in the toilet), and loudly called for Blago’s resignation last year after Blago got arrested. Lisa Madigan has done the same, but been even more vocal about it and “taken the lead” in maneuvering to oust him. Schakowsk, like Kirk, denounced Blago and demanded his resignation after he got arrested as well. Seals has stayed aloof and taken no position on RAT corruption, just like Obama.
That covers a wide range of different issues. Based on that, here's how they stack up:
* Lisa Madigan is just as liberal as Kirk on most issues, but could possibly be a hair to the right of him on one or two things.
* Dan Seals agreed with Kirk on virtually every major issue in 2006 and 2008, and there is no evidence to show any of that has changed since then.
* Jan Schakowsky agrees with Kirk on most issues, and may actually be a millimeter to the left of him on some things.
Conclusion: Only Schakowsky shows evidence of possibly being even worse than Kirk. Congressman Kirk is not “far to the right” of any of them.
“Fitzgerald had some social conservative views. However, people forget that he was truly a maverick who mostly focused on less government in all aspects of our lives. In my mind that is a libertarian point of view.”
Well it OUGHT to be the position of both conservatives and libertarians.
Fitz was for some gun control, that wasn’t libertarian, one of his few blemishes along with opposing ANWR drilling.
I think it's time we start looking for a conservative to draft for the Senate, with Congressman Roskam announcing he won't run and no conservative on the horizon considering an exploratory committee. I'll say one thing about Kirk... the little RINO turd is smart enough to read the writing on the wall and knows he'd lose against Lisa Madigan, but he'd be in the right place at the right down to take down a weak Dem type (Schakowsky, Jackson, Giannoulias, etc.) tained by corruption. And then Kirk can use the opportunity to claim he won because he's “moderate” and reshape the GOP to conform to his liberal agenda.
Kirk is playing his cards carefully. He need to be ready to take him out. His voting record will be his achillies heal if the rest of Illinois learns just how extreme, Mr. “Thoughtful Moderate” is.
Linc Chaffee's little clone is being groomed to go places.
I think it's time we start looking for a conservative to draft for the Senate, with Congressman Roskam announcing he won't run and no conservative on the horizon considering an exploratory committee. I'll say one thing about Kirk... the little RINO turd is smart enough to read the writing on the wall and knows he'd lose against Lisa Madigan, but he'd be in the right place at the right time to take down a weak Dem type (Schakowsky, Jackson, Giannoulias, etc.) tainred by corruption. And then Kirk can use the opportunity to claim he won because he's “moderate” and reshape the GOP to conform to his liberal agenda.
Kirk is playing his cards carefully. We need to be ready to take him out. His voting record will be his Achilles heal if the rest of Illinois learns just how extreme, Mr. “Thoughtful Moderate” is.
Linc Chaffee's little clone is being groomed to go places.
After they had been brainwashed by the media that is was KOOOOOL to vote for Obammy/
I wonder if you have a “modern” education where simple logic was ignored. You “proved” nothing but made a lot of specious assumptions. Why do I waste my time with moronic children like this?
How old are you? I suspect about 19-20 (My granchildren are older). First, get a life. Then, tell us (who have had a life) how to live it.
BTW, your wordiness is a seriously bad tell.
Kirk votes identical to socialist Democrats on most major issues, and I have shown you his voting record to prove it. If you can't understand what an "A" rating from NARAL means, then you probably shouldn't be voting. There's nothing remotely "moderate" about Kirk's views on abortion, guns, gays, the environment, immigration, etc. He's a liberal, and is rated accordingly by professional issue-based organizations who monitor politicians for years.
Clearly there's no talking to you if you're going to argue the kind of garbage Kirk votes for is "moderate" and he "needs" to take those positions to "win" over middle of the road voters. Middle of the road voters think 13 year old girls should be allowed to cross state lines and get an abortion without mommy and daddy knowing, eh? Funny, I've never meet ANYONE who agrees with that except flaming far-left nuts like Mark Kirk.
If you actually believe that about Kirk's record, you're either incredibly foolish or senile.
Oh...so you would like ANOTHER OBAMA instead of a moderate Republican?? geesh....you NEVER want to be in power again do you?
See how screwed up Republicans are who love Moderates? They write this note to me...
Oh...so you would like ANOTHER OBAMA instead of a moderate Republican?? geesh....you NEVER want to be in power again do you? Courtesy of AnnArchy
NOW read the Tag line!!(Abortion....the Human Sacrifice to the god of Convenience.)
Screaming about abortion and defending RINO Mark Kirk who PLANNED PARENTHOOD supported! YOU CANNOT HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT TO.
Apparently they "vote RINO" crowd is only against that agenda when the person implementing it has a "D" next to their name!
They don't seem to keen on the idea of backing up their claims with facts, do they?
Virtually your entire description of the event was wrong. Fitzgerald was a Conservative, respected by Conservatives, opposed by the corrupt and bipartisan IL Combine, the real enemy of reformers. He was their enemy by having defeated their annointed “R” choice in ‘98, the liberal RINO Combiner Comptroller Loleta Didrickson, and they were quite happy to sabotage him to keep Combiner crook Carol Mostly-Fraud in office. He was attacked from day #1 in the Senate, and the lead thug/enforcer for the Combine trying to take him down was the RINO Congressman LaHood, for whom the False Messiah rewarded with a Cabinet post for his success at forcing Fitzgerald from office and paving the way to the White House.
For you to not even mention the Combine when discussing Sen. Fitzgerald shows you don’t know anything about the political situation in IL at all. Others in this thread are well aware of it and called you on it.
Are you a member of the Combine ?
You would rather have a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT elected????????
I hope that Kirk will run for the U.S. Senate and lose the primary to a conservative. Jon Zahm said that Eric Wallace will probably run for the U.S. Senate.
So you're for electing a LIBERAL REPUBLICAN PRO-DEATH politician who is even more rabidly pro-abortion than the DEMOCRAT he defeated, Ann Archy?
Mark Kirk is to the LEFT of even Lisa Madigan on abortion, as I've previously documented on this thread. You can't get anymore pro-death than Mark Kirk, unless the Dems somehow recruit an abortion doctor to run against him.
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.