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.
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.
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%.