Mark Kirk could be Competitive in IL Senate race

Public Policy Polling ^ | May 1, 2009 | Dean Debnam

[yongin]

Illinois Senate Race

Mark Kirk 53 Roland Burris 19

Mark Kirk 37 Jan Schakowsky 33

Mark Kirk 35 Alex Giannoulias 35

Mark Kirk 33 Lisa Madigan 49

IL Governor

Pat Quinn 39 Bill Brady 32

Lisa Madigan 46 Bill Brady 27

[Last Dakotan]

Does he have a sealed divorce file?

[bigbob]

I know some like to throw the RINO description on Kirk and all, but having heard a number of interviews with him on Chicago area talk stations, I think he would be a good choice. Surprised to see the tie vs. Giannoulias but I suspect that may change if all the dirty laundry were aired.

Also have to say I think Lisa Madigan would be a good Governor. Despite being a Dem, she’s demonstrated courage and integrity as AG and isn’t corrupt.

[yongin]

Bill Brady fares poorly in his potential bid for Governor. The Oberweis fans will be vindicated in their minds that Brady is a dirty RINO.

The polls also show want Lisa Madigan wants, Lisa Madigan gets.

[paltz]

He reintroduced and voted for the hate crime bill

[EternalVigilance]

Mark Kirk can certainly help the Republican Party nail down its growing new credentials as a pro-abortion party.

[Darren McCarty]

Way too socially liberal for me, but at least he voted against the stimulus package. That's more than I can say about Specter. Kirk's no RINO, just a liberal Republican.

It's Illinois though. I'll take what I can get there.

[MplsSteve]

Kirk would do well in the collar counties around Chicago - DuPage, McHenry, etc. Plus he’s a veteran which will play well down-state.

he’s not as conservative as a lot of us would like but he really can’t be any worse than Burris, Madigan, etc.

[MplsSteve]

Political PING?

[Redbob]

Help me out here, please: I thought Roland Burris was the Senator?
Didn’t they seat him?
Is there going to be a special election instead?
(I musta missed something...)

[kabar]

Cook County will ensure the Dem wins regardless of the votes Kirk receives. They will manufacture them.

[yongin]

Burris was seated. There will be no special election. Burris will just serve the remainder of the Senate seat which ends in 2010.

[BillyBoy]

>> I think Lisa Madigan would be a good Governor. Despite being a Dem, she’s demonstrated courage and integrity as AG and isn’t corrupt. <<

LMAO!! Is there another gal named Lisa Madigan running around Illinois? I simply cannot understand her vast "popularity" in this state (latest poll numbers in this thread remind me of Virginians strange love affair with Mark Warner), but posts like yours must explain the mindset of some Illinois voters.

Lisa Madigan has done absolutely nothing to "demonstrate courage and integrity as AG", aside from liberal rags like the Tribune and Sun-Times claiming she has. She just puts on a dog-and-pony show and speaks out against RAT corruption AFTER it's been made public (by someone else, of course, like Patrick Fitzgerald) and she needs to look good by feigning "outrage" for Blago's crimes and so on. She's done nothing to root out Dem machine corruption when it's actually going on behind-the-scenes in Illinois, which is not surprising since her daddy RUNS the Dem machine in the state. She had absolutely no credentials in law enforcement or courtroom practice when she took over as the highest legal officer in the state (thanks to daddy rigging the RAT primary so she'd beat the 3rd highest official in the Clinton justice Dept. who was extremely qualified for the job), and decided to make the office focus on "empowering consumers" (translation: suing buisnesses into extinction). She's tied to just as many crooked RATs as Blago, she just hasn't gotten caught yet. Since she's taken office to "reform" Illinois in 2002, we're now tied with New Jersey as the most crooked state in the union.

Yeah, great job "reforming" Illinois and making us a model for "integrity", Lisa.

Seems to me that if you merged Elliot Spitzer (slimy ultra-liberal Dem machine lawyer crusader with questionable private life) with Lisa Murkowski (empty suit liberal-leaning political hack who owes her political "career" to sleazy daddy), you'd get Lisa Madigan.

Did I miss anything? :-)

Oh... and I finally thought of the perfect choice to play little Lisa in a Blago bio film: Katie Holmes:

[NormsRevenge]

RMSP member

http://www.republicanmainstreet.org/index.php/ElectedMembers

[12Gauge687]

I have found most Navy officers from the Midwest I know seem to be more socially liberal or moderate than Marine officers. However, I know 2 retired Marine officers who actually like Joe Biden and voted for him in past primaries.

On a qualitative level, he’s better than most Republican politicians I have met. Although I disagree with his forays towards more gun control and informed him of such in face-to-face meetings, he can discuss economic and foreign policy very intelligently, which is more than I can say for guys like James “Pate” Philip.

[yongin]

Has Pat Quinn announced his intention to seek election in his own right? Quinn is the most honest (in a relative sense) Cook County politican. The impeachment of Blago actually hurt Lisa Madigan’s chances in becoming governor. If Blago was still governor, Madigan would beeze thru the primary and general. Quinn might serve as an effective firewall to block the Madigan family takeover of Illinois.

[BobbyT]

Mark Kirk is very anti-2nd Amendment rights.

And that’s in Illinois, where there are few of them left to take, so all the gun-grabber bills he’s supporting are way out in left field.

He wants to expand the “assault” and magazine-ban Crook County still has to the entire state, and has supported the other tyrannical proposals of the Chicago socialists.

Unless someone can make him open his eyes on this, he is an incredibly poor choice, and would certainly prevent IL from finally joining the other 48 states where people can BEAR arms (no concealed or open carry here whatsoever).

[Impy]

"Also have to say I think Lisa Madigan would be a good Governor. Despite being a Dem, she’s demonstrated courage and integrity as AG and isn’t corrupt."

What planet are you on Bob? I hate to say "the" but this is the dumbest thing ever posted on FR that wasn't deleted soon after. GOOD Governor? That's breathtaking Bob. Isn't corrupt? In the same way OJ isn't a murderer? Quinn actualy isn't corrupt. Is he "good"? Looking forward to your tax hike are you? Happy some slag who poisoned her children has been let out of jail?

"I know some like to throw the RINO description on Kirk and all, but having heard a number of interviews with him on Chicago area talk stations, I think he would be a good choice."

Words? How about his actions? He'd be another Specter. I'll take him over a rat but come on. He won't be getting my vote in the primary. "Some" call him a RINO? Who DOESN'T? You?

Yongin, Brady is down 7 against Quinn that's not bad. I don't believe that Brady was running to throw it to Topinka. Against Lisa though, yeah, those are bad numbers.

I'm surprised ALEXI! G. hasn't been indicted yet.

Billy, good casting there. I like Marcia Gay Harden for Mrs. Blago. I'd like to hear her on a cussing tirade.

[Impy]

Yes they do that. But if you are claiming no Republican can win then why did Peter Fitzgerald win in 1998?

A Republican can win, but a close result can be stolen via “recount”.

[kabar]

He may be the last Rep to win a senate race in a long, long time. The demographics of Illinois are rapidly changing and those changes favor the democrats.

[EternalVigilance]

Unsurprising.

[Clintonfatigued]

Mark Kirk is nothing great, but he’s still preferable to any of the ‘Rats running. Also, remember, we only have 40 Senators out of 100, so beggars can’t be choosers. I would not support Kirk if he were running in Texas, Utah, or South Carolina. But this is a Chicago-dominated constituancy, so the logical thing to do is hold our noses and support him.

[Clintonfatigued]

“Political PING?”

Sure, the U.S. is the land of the never-ending campaign. Clearly, Mark Kirk is leaning towards running.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Bob, were you recently in a motorcycle accident while not wearing a helmet ?

[fieldmarshaldj]

Oh, yeah, because we need one more Arlen Specter/Maine Twins style RINO in the Senate. The more desperate we get in lowering the bar, the more we hurt ourselves until we have no standards at all. We need to do the opposite and hoist the damn bar. Too many R’s in the House and Senate that need to be retired. Either they’ve been in too long, are too liberal for their seats, or are too cozy with playing the go along to get along game. Enough is enough.

[Clintonfatigued]

Lowering the bar? You can’t get lower than Lincoln Chafee, and he’s long gone. Yeah, it sucks that we can’t get more real conservatives elected. True, there’s too much deadwood in the party’s elected officials. But we’re over a barrel. We don’t even have enough votes to sustain a filibuster.

The unfortunate fact is, Illinois and Pennsylvania aren’t going to elect the likes of Mark Sanford and Tom Coburn, even though you and I both wish it were otherwise. It’s great to have statesmen, but statesmen can’t accomplish anything if they can’t get elected. And remember, I backed the primary challenge to Lindsey Graham (as did you) and I’m hoping to see Robert Bennett (Utah) taken out in the Republcian primary.

David Souter’s retirement is proof of our position. Unless Obama screws up on a a scale no one imagines, there’s nothing we can do to prevent his choice from being confirmed. I want that to change in 2011. I know that you do also. And I am unaware of any other Republicans who can win the upcoming Senate race next year in Illinois.

[PhilCollins]

Since Kirk is my congressman, I think that he’s as liberal as the majority of Democrats. He’s pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-gay marriage, pro-spending increases, pro-illegal alien, and anti-Iraq surge. I’ve never voted for him. I skip that section of the ballot. He’s not better than the Democrats, because he has an “R,” by his name.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Y’know what ? Even if we had a Senate majority (a la 1995-2001 under Bubba), with folks like Kirk and Graham and Gerlach, et al, they would more than likely rubber-stamp any Dem Presidential nominee for SCOTUS, no matter how dreadful. Remember that Ruth Bader Ginsburg got confirmed with a 96 to 3 (!) vote, and this lady was clearly an ACLU moonbat who doesn’t belong in any sort of judicial position. Conversely, we can BARELY get sane Conservatives across under GOP Presidents (Sam Alito barely surviving getting out of committee and a 58-42 overall vote). Dems Bork ours mercilessly and we bend over and kiss the radical leftist nominees’ asses.

This dysfunction going on in the Senate amongst our party members was only brought to light with the likes of Specter. In the RINOs hearts, they’re really just Democrats, and even those that started off respectable (such as Hatch, Bennett or Lugar) ARE now the problem. Replacing them with the same types of people with that same mindset will not be solving the underlying problem. This party and the grassroots most especially has got to perform the equivalent of a lobotomy on most of the members.

I think half the problem with why these states won’t support unapologetic reformists that we NEED to be putting up is because the party establishment refuses and fights like hell against even nominating these types of people, and hence, end up doing little to motivate voters. Every time we talk about recruiting candidates and trying to run the right people, I feel like I’m having to fight my own party even more than the Democrats (or rather, by the time we get around to fighting the Dems, we’ve already lost - and the McCain nomination was the premier example of that). Something has got to give.

[BillyBoy]

>> Lowering the bar? You can’t get lower than Lincoln Chafee, and he’s long gone. Yeah, it sucks that we can’t get more real conservatives elected. True, there’s too much deadwood in the party’s elected officials. But we’re over a barrel. We don’t even have enough votes to sustain a filibuster. The unfortunate fact is, Illinois and Pennsylvania aren’t going to elect the likes of Mark Sanford and Tom Coburn, even though you and I both wish it were otherwise. It’s great to have statesmen, but statesmen can’t accomplish anything if they can’t get elected. And remember, I backed the primary challenge to Lindsey Graham (as did you) and I’m hoping to see Robert Bennett (Utah) taken out in the Republcian primary. David Souter’s retirement is proof of our position. Unless Obama screws up on a a scale no one imagines, there’s nothing we can do to prevent his choice from being confirmed. I want that to change in 2011. I know that you do also. And I am unaware of any other Republicans who can win the upcoming Senate race next year in Illinois. <<

I agree with Field, Impy, and Phil. Kirk would be a total disaster as U.S. Senator and is unacceptable. I actually think he'd be WORSE than Specter. Kirk started off as a 40-50% conservative Specter type from 2000-2006, but since 2006 he's moved left and won his last campaign in 2008 by gloating how envirowacko groups rated him "better than Obama" and how Planned Parenthood endorses him over the RAT Obama clone running against him. In 2006 the GOP leaders convinced Republicans to vote for Kirk because "you may not like his views on social issues, at least he's an Iraq veteran and supports our President on the WOT". Then Mr. "Iraq Veteran" turned around and voted AGAINST the surge. Total betrayal from his prior promise to "support our troops and give them the tools they need" I can't believe the RINO still hasn't been held accountable for being on the wrong side of the most important vote that was the positive turning point for the entire Iraq campaign. Whoever runs against in the primary better expose that fact to voters.

No one seems to be able to point to ANYTHING "Republican" Kirk has supported in the last two years except voting against porkulus. How the heck they got him to vote against that when the only time he criticizes Obama is when Obama isn't liberal enough for him, I don't know. But that's like saying Chafee was okay because the GOP managed to get him to support Bolton's inital appointment.

Likewise, the ONLY Dem Kirk ever spoke out against was Blago. Given that Blago had an 20% approval rating at the time and every Dem in the state considered him politically toxic after his arrest, it doesn't help Kirk's alleged "Republican" credentials. Kirk loudly proclaims he's "Thoughtful Independent who opposed the Bush agenda". The only time he ever claims to be a Republican is when he's having a fundraiser and lecturing Republicans about how he's a "proven winner".

Kirk's the "only" Republican in the entire state who can "win" statewide? I really find that hard to believe. We had a popular conservative Senator here as recently as 2004. True, he won because Moseley-Braun was his opponent, but the numbers in this thread show Kirk's "popularity" for Senate is based on who his opponent is. Against Burris, Kirk is a shoo-in; Against little Lisa Madigan, he'd get crushed (seems even Republicans have been brainwashed to believe she's a "reformer" with "honesty and integrity"); and against our state treasurer with mob ties (who won mainly because he's a buddy of Hussein Obama and The One ran TV ads telling Illinoisans what a swell guy the mob banker is), Kirk is dead even. I suspect you'd get similar numbers if voters were asked if they'd vote for Peter Roskam vs. all those Dems. Burris can't get elected dog catcher (this was true even before the Blago scandal came up), and Madigan has an enormous base of support, regardless of which Republican on the ballot.

Kirk is to the LEFT of both my State Senator and Dem State Rep., and both of them are lifelong card-carrying Democrats (pro-life, traditional family, tough-on-crime Dems) . Gee, I wonder how they got "elected" here in Crook County. I find it interesting how Kirk is polling even with Jan Schakowsky. Both he and the media act as if he's representing her district and has to be a freakin' moonbat to "win" it (Schakowsky's district is moonbat, with an exception of some areas like Des Plains and Park Ridge, which unfortunately are being held hostage by the moonbats... TheRightGuy is an example of a freeper stuck with her). But Kirk's district is NOT moonbat. Yes, Obama won it by a comfortable margin because he's their popular incumbant Senator running for President, but a quite a few pro-life, pro-gun, anti-tax, etc. conservatives have gotten "elected" in that district, and Tony Pericia won the Cook County portion of that district (the most liberal part of Kirk's district) handily when he was the GOP nominee against Todd Stroger.

Mark Kirk is a smarmy liberal out of touch with his constituents, period. He is the last person we want in the U.S. Senate. We don't need to replace Obama/Burris with someone who votes the same way but has an "R" next to their name.

[BillyBoy]

Not only would Kirk rubber stamp whatever marxist Obama nominates for a political post (sadly, half the Republicans in the Senate would do the same thing). But Kirk is such an obnoxious liberal, he's the type that would side with the RATs and go after people like Alito and Bork. I suggest freepers who believe Kirk would be “better than the Democrat” go to Kirk's website and read his press releases about everything conservative Bush did in the last two years. He goes to great lengths to poke his finger in the eye of conservatives.

[fieldmarshaldj]

I would think elevating him to the Senate would make him even more insufferable and he would feel emboldened to move further to the left (justifying it as “IL is a Dem-leaning state”). He got a 48 in ‘08, even the vile RINO Sen. Chuck Percy outscored Kirk in ‘84 in his final year (and I wouldn’t have voted for him). I’ll bet he’d be hitting the 20s (or worse) like the Maine twins.

[darkangel82]

Jim Garlic Stench is what you will get from PA. Kirk is a trash can RINO.

[AuH2ORepublican]

I agree that we have to cut Republicans in liberal constituencies some slack, but Kirk is so liberal that I would only think of supporting him if he ran for Congress from Manhattan or San Francisco or something. Illinois isn’t THAT liberal, and it has more pro-lifer and pro-gun voters (especially Downstate) than you would think looking at Obama’s two statewide elections.

[Clintonfatigued]

“Dems Bork ours mercilessly and we bend over and kiss the radical leftist nominees’ asses.”

You’re so right about that. Republicans were voting on the basis that the President should have his pick as long as there were no ethics or personality problems, while Democrats were vying to preserve liberal jurisprudence at all costs. The two parties have played by different rules on judicial confirmations, though Republicans had began to resist some egregious judges during Clinton’s second term.

[fieldmarshaldj]

CF, sorry if I was sounding hostile earlier. I know you’re trying to be pragmatic with your encouragement of folks like Kirk, Gerlach and Castle running for the Senate seats. But I feel like our pragmatism is akin to trying to climb out of quicksand. Every time we take a step, we sink further into the muck. The pragmatism may get us seats on paper, but it only gives us more heartache and grief because these people end up opposing far too much of what we know to be right (and some almost take delight in doing the wrong thing, with virtually the same aplomb as Democrats). Worse than that, they end up dragging the party in that wrong direction far more often than we drag them towards the right direction.

We “tolerate” them (unlike what the media claims) and they kick us in the teeth. From Chuck Percy to Charles Mathias, Lowell Weicker, Chafee Pere & Son, William Cohen, the Maine Twins, Warren Rudman, Ted Stevens, McCain, Pete Wilson, Dick Lugar, John Danforth, Chuck Hagel, Mike DeWine, George Voinovich, Gordon Smith, Specter, Lindsey Graham, Larry Pressler, Hatch & Bennett, Jeffords, John Warner... I mean these are just some of the “big names” of the Senate that have gone the extra mile to undermine the Conservative movement and the GOP of the past quarter century. All the while this happens, there’s no counterpart within the Democrats to pull them rightward. Virtually every last one of them is on the far-left and moving further that way with each passing Congress (and we see what happens when one votes a perfect far-left record save for one issue, and they try to purge them... and even with Lieberman, he’s practically crawled on his belly back to the very people that purged him from the party, not even bothering to pay any respect to the Republican voters that dragged his ass across to another term. Look where that got us. Less than useless).

I find it hillarious when the media berates us for our intolerance when we have members voting over 80% across the political spectrum from far-left to right, while the Dems barely cover 40% of the spectrum from the extreme left to left of center, with the bulk of their members voting nearly in lock step (indeed, remove about a dozen people, and they only cover 25%). They have little problem (and little hesistation) in laying down the law with their members (and don’t even have to do that much since they’re so full of true-believing Statist Socialists) while we’ve got far too many on our side more comfortable voting with these people.

You’ve got folks asking legitimate questions now, what DO we (as a party) stand for anymore ? If we’re going to just run candidates that are pale imitations of the opposition solely to “elect Republicans”, what’s the point ? You’ve got people pushing just that, to just get rid of the ideology altogether (which really means “get rid of the Conservative platform”). Democrats “urge” us to do that, because they know once this party does that, they’ve completely won the war. Sure, they’ll be kind and give us a few crumbs (witness Massachusetts, where the remaining 10% of the Republicans in the legislature are simply go along to get along liberal RINOs, who seem content to get patted on the head by their Democrat friends), but it’s all over.

BTW, as an aside, when does our party go all out to elect unapologetic Conservatives lately ? It’s like “leadership” is terrified to put up anything other than these roadkill RINOs/”moderates”/liberals/pragmatists, etc. Maybe we really are going to have no other choice and start a viable new party to supersede what’s here now, but with a completely new cast of players. Ones who are no longer interested in having their heads patted by the Democrats and the media, and ones unafraid to stand up to these bullies and thugs, unbossed and unbought. Those that stand up for Constitution and Conservatism.

I’ve urged for a long time to those who have had serious growing reservations to try to work within the existing Republican party, but it becomes harder for me, because I feel like it becomes a Sisyphean task every day when we’re so constantly disrespected and mocked (or just plain told to sit down and shut up). What we have now is a party that refuses to fight like hell except on the rarest of occasions, and when it says something the media/rodents don’t like, they fall all over themselves to apologize and show contrition to a humilating degree as if even BELIEVING in our Conservative values is shameful. I for one am not apologizing for what I believe in. Those that humiliate us are the ones in the wrong, and they’re the ones that deserve rightful scorn and mocking.

I mean, really, how long can people of conscience continue to ride a sinking ship before they run for the lifeboats ? At least I live in a state where a GOP still exists, but it, too, suffers from cowardice, aside from a handful of people and wins in spite of itself. But what of people that live in states where the party exists only on paper (like Hawaii, Massachusetts or Rhode Island) ? What does one tell these people who are completely shut out and without a voice ? Because I don’t know anymore. Tell them to work with the GOP when there IS no GOP to work with ?

I think there are huge numbers of Americans that don’t see their values represented by politicians and don’t bother getting involved. As I pointed out, there was almost as many people who voted for McCain in MA as did for Reagan in 1980 when he won the state, but who is engaging them ? The party chairwoman there ignores Conservatives and openly courts leftists and social deviants, and the party is dead and she won’t even recognize why that is (or worse, she does, and she intends to keep it dead so as not to offend Democrats, aside from perhaps trying to run out some of their Social Conservatives holding office, which the lib Dem leadership probably has no problem seeing).

I could just go on here, but you get the point...

[Clintonfatigued]

I know how frustrated you are. What you say makes sense. Part of the reason so many politicians saw their ratings change so much in the last two to three years is that Bush had become phenominally unpopular and they were distrancing themselves from him. Also, it’s much easier to be against someone than for them. So I would gage the lifetime ratings as more important than the most recent ratings. Clinton had some of the same problems, especially during his first term.

You do know, no doubt, that these candidates we’re divided on come from urban, Rodent-voting states. In many of those cases, the middle class tends to be non-traditional and what you once called “The John Lindsey Coalition” (rich social liberals & poor government dependents) is strong. The constituancies which support pro-life, pro-family candidates have mostly moved to other states or died off. Those who are left aren’t enough to swing an election. But even the most liberal Republicans will be influenced by that core to one degree or another, particularly in a better political environment. And in any event, while these RINO’s tend to get plenty of ink from the liberal MSM, they don’t usually reach positions of leadership.

There are demographics at work overall. You may recall that we spoke of the conservative bloc growing at a faster pace than liberals because they’re more likely to be parents and conservative parents have more children than liberal parents. That is true, but it’ll be years before those children can vote. The demographic trend favors us in the long run, but it also favors The Left for now. One can say that the McGovern coalition has reached reached its pinnicle (though Obama himself was far too young to vote in 1972). These will be difficult times. Remember that we’ve won a number of victories since 1993 and we may see Obama’s popularity peaking now and falling over the next couple of years.

[Finny]

Thanks for the ping, and really -- an exceptionally eloquent post, FMDJ. The quotes that stand out most for me and which I will no doubt either consciously or unconsciously "steal" in future posts of my own:

The pragmatism may get us seats on paper, but it only gives us more heartache and grief because these people end up opposing far too much of what we know to be right .

And --

If we’re going to just run candidates that are pale imitations of the opposition solely to “elect Republicans”, what’s the point ?

The first one is especially painful to me. Back when Grey Davis was being recalled, I was a very vocal supporter of pragmatic voting. I learned from that mistake and now see it for the illusion that it is: it looks like good sense, but in truth, it is the height of short-sighted stupidity. I plan to apply what I've learned, and furthermore, I see lots of FReepers, including founder Jim Robinson, who are also applying the same thing -- no more voting out of pragmatism, because it hurts more than it helps. It's like being marooned at sea without fresh water, and taking a gulp of sea water on the premise that any water is better than none. And the salty sea water kills you faster than if you had not drank it at all.

Pragmatic voting for liberal, big-government Republicans is exactly the same thing.

[SunkenCiv]

Alright!

[perfect_rovian_storm]

But what of people that live in states where the party exists only on paper...

Tell them to pick up a gun and fight like the rest of us are eventually going to have to.

Sorry for such a simple-minded response to a thoughtful post, but that's where we're headed. Buy guns, store food, prepare for what is coming.

[PhilCollins]

I agree with everything Bill said about Kirk. We need to nominate conservatives, for all statewide offices. In 2008, Dr. Sauerberg was moderate. He won his primary, and, 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%.

[Impy]

“Jim Garlic Stench”

Do you have on good authority? I hate garlic.

[Impy]

“The demographic trend favors us in the long run”

You think so? I hear we’re “doomed”. James Carville said so.

[Impy]

“Y’know what ? Even if we had a Senate majority (a la 1995-2001 under Bubba), with folks like Kirk and Graham and Gerlach, et al, they would more than likely rubber-stamp any Dem Presidential nominee for SCOTUS”

And as we know we had folks like that. Some of the same ones are still there.

Our majority in the 80’s was even worse with Weicker, Percy (IL), Mathias. ect. Jimmy Carter or Walter Mondale wouldn’t have had trouble getting someone in.

Which begs the question, when the hell was the last time a Republican Senate voted on a rat President’s Supreme Court nominee? You gotta go back to Grover Cleveland’s Rufus Wheeler Peckham (actually that’s the ONLY time it’s ever happened, and it was only a Republican plurality in the Senate and Grover was a Democrat not a rat).

I wonder how it would have gone for Bubba in say 1999 after beating the rap. Or in 1995 on the heels of the contract with America and Senate leaders saying “hey, that’s a house thing”.

“Remember that Ruth Bader Ginsburg got confirmed with a 96 to 3 (!) vote, and this lady was clearly an ACLU moonbat who doesn’t belong in any sort of judicial position.”

Souter got more votes against. 9. All democrats who didn’t get the memo from Rudman and thought he was a conservative. LOL.

[Impy]

I don’t like seeing Steve Austria, freshman of Ohio on that list. I thought he was a conservative.

The conservatism of those members actually varies widely. From ue Collins and Kirk to people who are mostly conservative.

[BillyBoy]

The tendency of Senate Republicans to roll over for whatever Marxist the Dems want appointed is precisely the reason I didn't prop up the last useless RINO Senate candidate the IL GOP foisted on me (who had zero chance of winning anyway) and I think Field gave similar reasons for skipping Bob Corker's name on the ballot. Not one Steve Sauerberg supporter could tell me how Sauerberg would vote any differently than Durbin in the scenario that Obama was naming judges, and an Obama presidency was ultimately the scenario that became reality. I don't think it would cost a Republican Senate candidate any support from "swing voters" to simply state on their website that they intend to vote against any of the opposition party's nominees who have fringe beliefs and/or wacky back history. The general public does not have positive views of the ACLU and there's nothing wrong with opposing a judge who is a card-carrying lawyer for that group. The GOP is going to continue to lose until they learn to stop running gutless Sauerberg-type candidates who have no platform to run on.

Kirk, of course, would be even worse than Sauerberg, since at least Sauerberg committed to voting in favor of conservative judges like Alito, Roberts, Estrada, etc. You will no such guarantee with Mark Kirk in a future Republican administration. And knowing the way Kirk operates, he will actually look for an opportunity to "Bork" future conservative nominees to help his street creed with RAT voters.

The Senate RATs and GOP do indeed play by different standards. Some freeper excused the pathetic 96-3 vote for Ginsburg (the 3 NOs being Helms, Nickles, and Bob Smith -- if Sununu Jr. had been Senator at the time it would have been 98-2), by saying that in 1993 it was expected to give the sitting president the right to appoint whoever he wants unless they have some fail some kind of serious criminal background check, like being a closet drug addict something. That's absolutely untrue, as the RATs had gone all out just two years earlier to destroy Clarence Thomas, and the ONLY thing they had on him was testimony from one person that he made lewd jokes about pubic hair. The RATs regularly destroyed Reagan and Nixon nominees because they didn't like the person's ideology. Squishy Anthony Kennedy was Reagan's THIRD choice for the job, along with the squishy Nixon SCOTUS appointees being named after the RATs filibustered ANY Nixon judge who lived south of the Mason-Dixon line (on the basis that all southern Republicans must be closet racists, of course)

The only RAT judicial nominee anyone can point to being blocked was LBJ's 11th hour attempt to elevate Abe Fortas from associate Justice to Chief Justice (Earl Warren resigned the moment Nixon won the election for that precise reason, hoping the lame duck RAT president could replace him with another liberal). But, as Republican Senators pointed out, this situation really DID amount to exordinary circumstances because Fortas was an LBJ crony with serious ethnics problems, AND a number of Dems supported blocking the appointment, so it wasn't a "partisan" filibuster. They didn't destroy him, simply delayed things until Nixon was sworn in and he could make the appointment. Fortas later resigned on his own in protest for not getting the promotion to Chief.

The GOP is truly pathetic if the last time they voted down a RAT judge was a Cleveland appointee. Cleveland was a DINO anyway (certainly by today's standards at least), so most of his appointees should have been pretty ideologically friendly to the Republicans anyway. His appointment for Chief Justice, for instance, was Mark Twain look-a-like Melville Fuller (trivia point: the only SCOTUS CJ from Illinois), who had a center-right voting record like Cleveland himself (and unlike Bryon White, didn't morph into a conservative-leaning judge after being "expected" to vote liberal)

That means every RAT president since Woodrow Wilson had gotten free reign to appoint whatever socialist they want to the courts. What a tragedy. No wonder we have such a runaway judiciary in this country doing social engineering the elected legislatures can't get away with.

I'd say it's long overdue for serious reforms about how our federal judicial system is installed.

[fieldmarshaldj]

"and I think Field gave similar reasons for skipping Bob Corker's name on the ballot."

While I strongly spoke out against him in the primary, I did end up voting for him in the general because he was practically tied with Junior Ford and I didn't want it to be my fault for seeing a Ford end up as Senator. If Corker had been leading by a comfortable margin, I would've skipped it. I voted "None of the Above" last year for Senator against Lamar! when he went out of his way to pander to Democrat voters (and he didn't even have a serious Dem opponent). Lamar!, believe it or not, actually covets the Senate Leader position, and frankly, for someone who is so pandering to Democrats, is precisely the last person to hold a partisan office.

[BillyBoy]

Good point on the closeness of the Corker/Ford race vs. Lamar!/Tuke being a foregone conclusion. I think Impy made similar comments about how he'd hold his nose for a moderate in the general to stop a RAT from winning, and I tend to agree. I would have even held my nose for Sauerberg if he had come within striking distance of Durbin (snowball's chance of that happening), but of course he was behind by double digits the whole time.

I think holding one's nose in the general election and voting for a squishy "moderate" to stop a RAT from winning is pragmatic politics. But encouraging and helping the party to nominate the likes of Kirk, Specter, Castle, Ahnuld, Maine twins, etc., (most of those people are too far left on the political spectrum to even lay claim to being "moderate") isn't pragmatic at all, it's dumb. It may look smart on paper to have a "Republican" in office, but in the long term it just hurts Republicans because voters will blame failed socialist policies on the so-called “Republican” and never elect another "Republican" for the foreseeable future.

I applaud Finny for learning this lesson after seeing what Ahnuld did to the California GOP. I wish more freepers would get it. Alot of them have it backwards -- they support nominating "electable" RINOs in the primary and skip conservatives like Santorum in the general election because they're ticked off at them.

No conservative should be pushing for Illinois Republicans to nominate the likes of Mark Kirk for Senate, or the RINO trio for California Governor, etc.

[BillyBoy]

BTW, although I haven't seen it argued on this thread, I've had some freepers argue with me in the past
that the reason the RAT activists don't like Kirk is because he's a “fiscal conservative”. You know, the
same tired argument they made for Ahnuld in 2003. I don't think Congressman Mark “billions for embryonic stem cell
research and free condoms for everyone in Mexico” Kirk is a fiscal conservative at all, and I think the RATs
try so hard to defeat him each year for the same reason they went after LIEberman: both of them took a picture
a while back where they hugged President Bush. If Kirk simply changed his party affiliation to “D” (he's already
renounced his past support of Bush, just like LIEberman), they'd welcome him with open arms.

In any case, I looked up Kirk's record on “fiscal issues” from various interest groups. He's not AS far left as
he is on social issues, but in no way can anyone claim this guy is a good “fiscal conservative” from looking
at his voting record. Here's the latest numbers:

=============================================

LIBERAL GROUPS

Based on a point system, with points assigned for actions in support of or in opposition to National Association of Counties’s position, Representative Kirk received a rating of 75 percent.

Kirk supported the interests of the Campaign for Working Families 59 percent in 2005-2006.

Kirk supported the interests of the Federally Employed Women 60 percent in 2007.

Kirk supported the interests of the International Foodservice Distributors Association 87 percent in 2007-2008.

Kirk supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 52 percent in 2007.

In 2007, International Brotherhood of Boilermakers gave Kirk a grade of 60.

Kirk supported the interests of the Service Employees International Union 52 percent in 2007.

Kirk supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 57 percent in 2007.

Kirk supported the interests of the Americans for the Arts Action Fund 100 percent in 2008.

Kirk supported the interests of the Americans for the Arts Action Fund 88 percent in 2006.

Kirk supported the interests of the Americans for the Arts Action Fund 94 percent in 2004.

---

CONSERVATIVE GROUPS

In 2008 National Taxpayers Union gave Kirk a rating of C-.

Kirk supported the interests of the National Tax Limitation Committee 56 percent in 2007-2008.

Kirk supported the interests of the Citizens Against Government Waste 33 percent in 2007.

Kirk supported the interests of the Taxpayers for Common Sense 44 percent in 2005.

Kirk supported the interests of the Citizens for Tax Justice 17 percent in 2005-2006.

Based on a point system, with points assigned for actions in support of or in opposition to FreedomWorks's position, Kirk received a rating of 40.

Kirk supported the interests of the The Club for Growth 19 percent in 2007.

Kirk supported the interests of the The Club for Growth 37 percent in 2006.

Kirk supported the interests of the GOPUSA 0 percent in 2007.

Kirk supported the interests of the Americans for Prosperity 16.7 percent in 2006.

Kirk supported the interests of the Public Citizen's Congress Watch 35 percent in 2005-2006.

---

Kirk supported the interests of the National Journal - Conservative on Economic Policy 54 percent in 2007.

Kirk supported the interests of the National Journal - Conservative on Economic Policy 50 percent in 2003.

[PhilCollins]

Since I live in Kirk’s district, I read about him, and I know that he’s not fiscally conservative. He says that he opposes earmarks, but he ensured that our 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’s a hypocrite and a liar.

[calcowgirl]

The Republican Main Street Partnership

What We Stand For
• Pro-American Competitiveness
• Pro-Alternative Energy
• Pro-Defense
• Pro-Education
• Pro-Environment
• Pro-Growth
• Pro-Healthcare
• Pro-Reform
• Pro-Retirement Security

---

WooHoo! Now Republicans can support big-government liberals without voting for one of those evil Democrats! Ain’t life grand!