Posted on 01/22/2009 3:35:55 PM PST by Clintonfatigued
Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Ill.) said Monday that he expects a crowded field to pursue the Senate seat of Roland Burris (D) and that it might include him.
“I do think that Roland Burris is going to be political sorbet,” Roskam said of embattled Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s (D) appointee. He added: “I think you’ll see a whole host of folks coming forward.”
In an interview with The Hill, Roskam promoted his Illinois GOP colleague, Rep. Mark Kirk, saying he would be “a very, very strong candidate.”
But Roskam also said he would consider the race.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
In a surprise, Peter Roskam is plugging Mark Kirk as a Senate candidate. Kirk is hardly the ideal conservative, but given the dominance of the Chicago area, we may have no better options.
I don't get it.
>> I do think that Roland Burris is going to be political sorbet
What the hell is “political sorbet”?
sorbet
an ice containing no milk but having a mushy consistency; usually made from fruit juice
I think that about sums it up.
I’ll buy that.
Conservatives have lost their f’n minds.
But he sure is an ideal liberal. I wouldn’t support another RINO of Kirk’s vintage for the Senate if my feet were on fire.
Sorbet is sometimes served in multi-course meals before the main course to cleanse the palate of the previous appetisers, salad, soup, etc.
Based on past statements, you would never support a RINO like that for an executive position, like Governor, but you’d bite the bullet in a legislative race in a liberal constituancy due to the fact that it’s a collective responsibility rather than a personalized one. Has that changed?
I hope not. We don’t need another Arlen Specter in the Senate.
I’d be thrilled to have a Tom Coburn clone elected in states like Illinois and New York. But we have to deal in reality.
I might, under certain circumstances, support certain candidates in the House, though that window is rapidly closing. I’m completely disgusted with the Senate, and I don’t want to see the election of a single more liberal RINO. When I watched the near-complete capitulation of the Republican caucus in confirming Cabinet members of dubious ethical, moral, and ideological makeup, I have to wonder what the hell we even need an opposition party for ? Hillary Clinton having only TWO people vote against her, and one (DeMint) who had to preface his vote by kissing her ass ? I’m sorry, but there is something seriously f**ked up here. She has enough ethical and criminal violations to choke a horse. Was Billy Dale EVER mentioned ? The FBI files ? Rose Law Firm billing records ?
Nope, Kirk would just be yet member to compound the problem. We need an ACTUAL opposition party. If not, then we might as well let Burris stay put, because we’re not gaining a damn thing here. Seriously.
Tom Coburn didn’t even vote against Hillary.
Yeah...that’s what we need. Another anti-gunner in the Senate.
No more RINOs. Period.
We had a RINO senator in Oregon. He bent over backwards to appease the suburban moderates.
He lost to a real liberal.
The RINO strategery doesn’t work.
Otherwise, there's no value in showing up at the polls IMO. If it's Burris or a RINO, may as well stay with the devil we know IMO.
I get that he is “dessert,” or the end of the meal at the end of the day. His successor will be “political breakfast,” the beginning of the next day.
Oh I think Kirk would win, if it’s him versus Roland Burris (and a green will be around to take rat votes).
But the question is what would we win? One of the 4 most liberal Republican Senators.
I’ll vote for him if he’s the nominee, I’d rather have half a Republican Senator than nothing. But some IL conservatives likely wouldn’t see it that way.
In Oregon Gordon Smith had been moving left and made like Obama and Ron Wyden supported him. Then they both came out and said “hell no we don’t” and Smith looked like a fool. He POed enough conservatives that they voted constitution party and the rat won with 48%. Would that happen in Illinois? No, our Libertarian and Constitution parties are weak.
I do think a better Republican can beat Burris also. I don’t think we’re like NY where no conservative need apply.
I’m confident a non-corrupt conservative would have beaten Blagojevich. Instead we had the horrid Topinka and you actually had some Republicans joining some democrats in protest voting for the Green who won enough votes to givethat party permanent ballot access for 4 years!
I am SO done voting for RINOs antithetical to Conservative doctrine. I voted against Lamar! last November, and so help me, if our f**kwitted party puts up another damn RINO next year for Governor, they can kiss my ass. As for Kirk, the last thing IL needs is the next Chuck Percy.
He’s not quite as bad as Percy or any of those old school RINO Senators.
But yes he stinks. And he kinda has a face like a human gloworm.
Kirk’s ACU rating 2007 = 40.
Percy’s ACU rating 1984 = 50.
If a RINO wins the primary, he would lose the general election. In 2008, a republican politician, I know, said that Dr. Sauerberg is so liberal, he should have run as a Democrat. Sauerberg won his primary, but, in the general election, he got 33%. In 2006, then-Treasurer Topinka was moderate. She won her primary, but, in the general election, she got 38%.
If the choices are Burris and a RINO, I hope that the Constitution Party would have a candidate who has political experience. This year, Isabel Township, Fulton Co. Supervisor Greg Juergens is running for re-election, as a Constitution Party candidate.
Kirk’s latest rating from Planned Parenthood is 100%. His latest rating from Gun Owners of America is 0%.
Which means Kirk is more liberal than the new liberal Democrat Senator from NY, Kirsten Gillibrand.
I remember the fight that primary caused on here. It resulted in flame wars and a few zots.
Were there freepers backing Hopinka in the primary?
Unfortunately yes.
That 50 was by far his best year. His lifetime is 30 (AKA Moderate democrat). Kirk’s is 56/57. 40 in 2007 may have been his lowest..bad sign.
Kirk’s an F- (and Pete King F) from the GOA and Gillibrand is a C, better on one issue at least.
Sauerberg was a sac lamb, an unknown who ran a non-campaign (did you see a single tv ad Phil I didn’t) against an entrenched incumbent that’s why he got bitch slapped by a huge margin. No one even knew he was a RINO cause they didn’t know who the heck he was. Kirk versus Burris would be very different. To reiterate I DON’T want Kirk but he would not be a weak candidate in my opinon.
Topinka was a corrupt combiner as well as being a RINO I can’t believe some freepers backed her in the primary. Morons. Someone better would have beaten Blagosnitch.
The ‘08 ratings aren’t out, yet, so they could go even lower. Since a lot of RINOs are quite happy with the rodent majority and Stalinist Emperor, he may move even further to the left in ‘09.
I think it takes them till May give or take a month to get new ratings out for the previous year. Slow.
Obviously you’ll the have the bailout as a key vote, I think Gillibrand was nay, lol.
Which primary? I mentioned the 2008 U.S. Senate primary and the 2006 governor primary.
No, I don’t remember any TV commercials for Sauerberg. Every IL GOP primary voter should have known about him. I knew about him, in June 2007, probably because I was Mike Psak’s volunteer coordinator. Mike was the only candidate, in that race, who was pro-life, pro-gun, and anti-illegal alien, but he got 11%. Does that mean that 89% of Illinois Republicans are moderate or that they were too lazy to learn about the candidates?
I agree with you, about the 2006 governor primary. I walked seven precincts for St. Sen. Brady.
The later certainly. This was a very low interest race amongst the public as Durbin was not going to lose and everyone knew it. I doubt most primary voters knew much about any of them. You had freepers (campaign agents?) here pimping Sauerberg as a conservative and asking for donations as if he could actually beat Durbin which is a view no sane person held. Especially given that he didn't run TV ads.
Sauerberg's status as the anointed party establishment choice was more enough to give him the best name recognition and the win. Odd ball (kook? Rino?) Andy Martin who has run for office in 3 states also apparently had better name recognition than Psak.
As I recall maybe a week before the primary I examined the candidates in this race and choose Psak (Truckers seem to make good Republicans) over RINO leader's choice Dr. Sauerberg who Billyboy diligently exposed as a RINO and self proclaimed "Middle East Expert" Martin. I also advised my mother that Psak was the only pro-life one apparently (her #1 issue).
I was a little surprised he placed such a poor third to Martin though I knew Sauerkrut would easily win.
Why did Chairman McKenna, the IL GOP State Central Committee, and Randy Pollard (president of the county GOP chairmen association) endorse Sauerberg, although he disagreed with much of the IL GOP platform? I emailed Pollard and about 55 county GOP chairmen, about this, but none of them answered my question.
The party bosses picked him to run, ridiculous choice, they obviously have no problem picking non-conservatives as some of themselves are not. I can’t be certain the thought process that go into selecting a sacrificial lamb. His deep pockets were very likely reason number 1, so he could self finance. Maybe they just outright sold it to him?
Perhaps Sauerberg wants to run for some lesser winnable office and wanted to raise his standing.
McKenna needs to go. He was the one Lahood was gonna have run against Peter Fitzgerald. It’s a joke to have that combiner as party chairman.
Topinka as Chair and then McKenna. LOL. Both have done a bang up job huh.
“I emailed Pollard and about 55 county GOP chairmen, about this, but none of them answered my question.”
Well that stinks. They need to be communicating with the populace.
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.