Monday, October 13, 2008

Chicago Sun-Times: "Fiercely Independent" Mark Kirk is Exactly What We Need

Wow- the accolades for Mark Kirk keep piling up, and are getting better and better. This morning, the Chicago Sun-Times gushes over Mark Kirk in a way that I haven't seen since they turned their editorial department over to Obama for America:

"Mark Kirk is exactly what the 10th Congressional District, the State of Illinois, and our country needs in Congress: a congressman who is hard working, very knowledgeable, fiercely independent, dedicated to bipartisan action, and an effective contributor to resolving the nation's and his district's problems."

Maybe now I'll even renew my subscription...


Anonymous said...

HOORAY, TA, I just finished reading the outstanding endorsement piece. The New Sun piece was excellent, this one is right on target as well. The Pioneer Press was fine because they also realize that Mark Kirk IS the right choice. I'm not quite ready to renew my subscrition, TA, but it's something to consider. Maybe.

Anonymous said...

Mark Kirk is the greatest.

Yesterday, the Daily Herald reported the idiot in the pup's veterans ad is Caleb Davis of Peoria. Can anyone tell us about him? He needs to be called out for his misrepresentation of Congressman Kirk's record of helping veterans. Does this guy even know who Congressman Kirk is? Is Davis really a veteran? Did he get paid for his services producing the ad? Plenty of questions that need real answers by the Seals capaign team.

Mark Kirk is the choice of Tenth District reisdents. The pup needs to go out and get a real job while Congressman Kirk needs to return to Congress.

Anonymous said...

One of the best endorsements I've ever read -- an in the Chosen One's newspaper. Is it a sign there really are a few thinking people in Cook County? I sure hope so because there is no one better in the Congress then our very own Congressman Mark Kirk.

We can't let this go to our heads though. We still have to work hard and get out the vote for out Congressman.

Anonymous said...

Further proof that a noun, a verb, a consonant and an obnoxious catwoman are not a platform for a congressional campaign.

Anonymous said...

It's well known that "independent" is the Liberal media's code word for "not actually conservative".

C'mon, I just received a mailing from Kirk that had an endorsement on it from Planned Parenthood. He's not just pro-choice, which I could overlook in favor of other things, but he's actually endorsed by PP. U-G-L-Y.

I will never vote for Seals, and I know that Kirk has done well on many other issues, but to proudly display a PP endorsement on a campaign-funded mailer is just too much for me. Down with Seals, Down with Kirk, Up with a true Conservative in the 10th!

Anonymous said...

Anon 10:59, are you some kind of moron? So you're not going to vote for Mark Kirk, and surely not for Seals. Doing it your way just guarantees that Seals can win. Get your act together or move to a different district. This 10th Congressional District will never, ever elect a Conservative. Use your head. You only hurt yourself with an idiotic idea like yours. This District leans Democrat. And you think your ideas have merit? Get over it.

Commodore Perry said...

Anon 5:15,

Darned straight those ideas have merit. I also know the 10th leans left, and I hate it, but anon 10:59 should not be silenced just because of that.

Don't say that just because the district leans a certain way that we should just give up hope on a conservative candidate. Why even bother having parties? Why not just constantly try to elect moderates for every office on every level? That is what your logic would lead to. In fact, there are many far-lefties who are fighting hard for their extreme views; why should conservatives not fight for what we believe is right?

The crux of your position rests on valuing electability over ideology. Is that good? Maybe for you, but not for me, and apparently not for Anon 10:59.

Over history, this country has had great political debates that have allowed people to support their views freely. Can you imagine if we redefined the spectrum? What if the spectrum suddenly ran from Left to middle, instead of Left to Right? Then we would keep cutting it in half and cutting it in half, etc, until the only thing left was Left. And that's just not Right.

Team America said...

Commodore P- love your blog, but gotta disagree with you here. If you insist on electing officials who agree with you on every single principle, you will find no one who absolutely meets that test, so you better run yourself. If you can accept the idea that you can vote for someone who agrees with you less than 100.00% of the time, it's just a sliding scale as to how much flexibility in your political beliefs you can stomach if you want to have a chance of winning.

You can say you're standing up for your principles if you like, and I respect you for it, but as a practical matter, in the 10th District as it's currently comprised, you are a fool because your theoretical conservative WILL NEVER BE ELECTED. If you insist on "perfection" under your standards, you will doom yourself to a fate well-illustrated by Seals's heroes like Nancy Pelosi and Charlie Rangel (not to mention Barack).

I don't agree with Kirk on every single issue either, but he's the 'most conservative' guy that will ever get elected in IL-10. Deal with it.

Commodore Perry said...


I understand the dynamics of the 10th. I know that Kirk is likely the "most conservative" candidate possible for it.

But do not take away anyone's right to democratically push for his or her views. If you do that, then you wind up looking like the Dems and Obama's awful "Truth Squad" in Missouri. Personally, I would always hope for someone who is pro-life, and I too am shocked to find that PP specifically endorses Kirk.

There are two points I'm trying to make here:
1) Though I don't like one-issue voters, it is Anon's right to be one if s/he so chooses and we are nobody to say otherwise. We can try to influence his/her opinion using persuasive arguments, but belitting someone on this is the same kind of thing that we accuse the Dems of doing to us.
2) Every election forces us to choose between candidates of electability and candidates of desire. I don't mind someone who votes based on electability, especially in a situation like the 10th, but woe to those who believe that it's ok to throw away other issues just to maintain full partisan support of a candidate. The Whigs vanished from the electoral map because they could not maintain a separate identity and kept running middle of the road or otherwise "best bet" candidates who, not surprisingly, all flopped; we cannot let that happen to the GOP.

I support Kirk versus Seals anywhere, any time, but I will not bow out of my personal brand of views just because that one district in one state will never elect someone who agrees with me 100%. The bounds of a district on a map should not define the bounds of political thought of an individual. I hope Anon 10:59 votes for Kirk, but sometimes it takes a Carter to get a Reagan.