As Team America readers know, this past week has been marked with a lot of debate on Congressman Mark Kirk's vote in favor of the Obama Climate Change bill, which infuriated many of the hard core anti-tax crowd in the Republican establishment, and took many Republicans, even those who have been strong supporters of Kirk for years (like TA), by surprise.
Today, the Daily Herald took a good look at the controversy and surprise caused by Kirk's vote, and noted the importance of on-line discussions, including those here on Team America's 10th District Blog, in disseminating information and providing a forum for debate:
The vote also surprised Mettawa Trustee Larry Falbe, who writes about Lake County political happenings at his Team America's 10th District blog. A longtime and outspoken Kirk supporter, Falbe has spent several days writing about the vote, and his entries have prompted dozens of posts from angry readers who, like Thorner, feel double-crossed.
"As much as I respect and admire Mark, he did not telegraph very well which way he was going to go on this," Falbe said. "There wasn't a lot of buildup to let his constituents know where he stood on this."
Falbe acknowledged Kirk has bucked the GOP in the past. That's a political necessity: A hardline Republican couldn't win in the largely independent-thinking 10th District, which covers parts of Lake and Cook counties, Falbe said.
"He's the most conservative person we're going to get elected in the 10th District," Falbe said.
Since the vote, Kirk has been hosting conference calls, exchanging e-mails, making radio appearances (notably on the conversative Don Wade and Roma show on WLS-AM), and has updated his website, all in an attempt to explain his vote and help his constituents understand his decision.
While some are still very upset, it seems to me that a good portion of Kirk's base of support is still intact, now that the shock has started to wear off. Of course, there are some Republicans that never thought much of Kirk in the first place, and now see this as their chance to get broader support to throw Kirk off the reservation. Whether this movement gets any traction past the immediate aftermath of the climate vote remains to be seen. And, frankly, lots of us political junkies completely lose sight of the fact that much of the electorate just isn't paying attention to any of this stuff. There's a long time until the election comes around.
Meanwhile, in addition to defending his vote on the climate change bill, Kirk is also talking up the next big challenge, which is defeating the Obama health care bill. As we noted here previously, the health care battle is going to make the climate change bill seem like just a warm up, and even the arch-conservatives are going to have to support Kirk's efforts in this regard. Kirk relates that GOP House Leader John Boehner's team has adopted a huge chunk (75% or so) of what Kirk's legislative team put together as the basis for the GOP counter to ObamaCare, which places Kirk squarely in the position of a leader on this issue. Once the more onerous planks of ObamaCare start to be widely publicized, like FINING people for not acquiring health insurance, I think the masses will quickly forget where Mark was on climate as he gets out in front on the heath care battle.
Would Kirk vote the same way on climate change again if he knew what a firestorm it would cause? I'm not sure. But, he did state one thing:
"I'm out of the weather predicting business."
LOL, Mark, and keep fighting for us in the 10th District.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
41 comments:
Yep, TA, it's time to look ahead, not back, and prepare for the battle on healthcare that will get top billing when Congress goes back to work next week. I hope that voters in the 10th District will pay close attention to what our Congressman has been working on as the sensible alternative to what Obamacare would force on a very unsuspecting country. Granted, it's been a week I'd rather forget. I remain, like you, very optimistic that the voters in the 10th will realize that Mark Kirk has done more great things than not so great things for all of us since he went to DC in 2001.
What does Mark Kirk have to do before you realize that there's little difference between him and Jan Shakowsky? To quote Tom Roeser,
"What’s the use of our placating Mark Kirk if he’s just another Dem vote anyhow? So he’s going to get a tough primary opponent."
We're working hard to defeat this turncoat!
Andy- Yawn. Big yawn.
From what I've seen of the local anti-Kirk crowd, I'd like to see one potential candidate who can walk and chew gum at the same time, not to mention avoid sounding like a close-minded facist. You obviously don't know the 10th District, and the more types like you open their mouths, the more intelligent 10th District voters understand why Kirk is the best choice.
You go find someone to run against Kirk, and we'll take it from there. It was getting boring battling Dan Seals every couple of years anyway.
Thanks for the dialogue, but you're missing the points!
1) What's the difference who's in the seat when it votes Dem most of the time anyhow?
2) Mr. Kirk is helping re-elect at least two Dems in Illinois because he voted for Cap and Trade. Jerry Costello (District 12) and Bill Foster (District 14) both were "allowed" to vote NO on ACES because their no vote didn't hurt. This helps them get re-elected.
Remember, it's not about getting an "R" in the seat, but how you vote! Instead of spending time writing health care overhaul legislation, maybe he should figure out a way to stop government interference, which causes most of the problems our country faces, from the housing crisis to the recession! Remember, government does not produce, it only consumes.
By the way, I grew up in the 10th, but don't live there any longer.
Andy- overlooking the fact that we in the 10th District have an issue with folks outside the District telling us what to think and whom to vote for, here's a couple Kirk votes to consider, direct from Team Kirk:
Voted Against Obama Budget
Voted Against $787 Billion
Stimulus
Voted Against $410 Billion Omnibus (with 9,000 Earmarks)
Voted
to Keep Gitmo Open
Voted For Cap and Trade
Voted Against Ledbetter Act
Against an Afghanistan Timetable
Against Union Card Check Bill
Against Earmarks
Against Government-Run Health Care
Against Illegal
Amnesty
In Favor of Border Wall
In Favor of Balanced Budget
In Favor
of Missile Defense
Overall, I'd say a pretty decent record. You put ANYONE other than Kirk on the GOP ballot, and you can welcome in a Dan Seals/Michael Bond/Susan Garrett for the rest of your lifetime. It's really that simple. So please stay home in Chicago and try to reform Cook County if you need a cause.
One more thing:
This has happened before in Illinois. I voted for the Green candidate instead of voting for Judy Barr Topinka. I refuse to vote for squishy moderate Republicans, and boy am I glad she didn't win. Now, Illinois is a mini-California and guess who must take the blame: Democrats! Imagine the finger-pointing if Topinka was in office.
Well, I guess you can't vote for OR against Kirk, can you?
Try to vote in some "real" conservatives in Cook County if you want a challenge.
TA,
Are you truly unconcerned with the principle of the vote? Let me ask you it this way: Is this a good vote for America?
Does Kirk support the provisions of this bill or is he doing this for cheap political points?
According to his website:
“For 2009, our top goal should be energy independence. I support exploring for energy off our coasts, expanding nuclear power and building a natural gas pipeline across Canada to lower heating costs in the Midwest – an “all-of-the-above” energy strategy.”
Do you care to enlighten us by explaining what of any of this is in the ACES bill, or do you prefer to dodge the actual issues and continue shilling for Kirk?
To imply that anyone to the right of Kirk cannot "walk or chew gum at the same time" or "avoid sounding like a close-minded fascist" show the shallowness of your argument, ad-hominem attacks.
I understand though, there really is no defense for the indefensible.
Richard Dahl and Andy Dahl (and whoever else finds this applicable)- I don't think I've ever defended the cap and trade bill on substance. Admittedly Mark's explanation, while some parts have merit, have not entirely convinced me, and I could easily argue either side.
But, what I do know is that Mark is a great Congressman and I agree with him a lot more than I disagree with him on. If we don't have Mark, we will have Dan Seals or a similar empty suit, with whom which I can be virtually guaranteed to agree on NOTHING. Again, it's really that simple.
If you types are that dumb to believe that you can do better than Kirk in IL-10, or you would rather send a screaming liberal like Seals to Congress than support someone who does not agree with you 100% of the time, then I hope you enjoy the courage of your convictions, because that's all you will have to comfort you.
'Nuf 'Sed.
TA-
I agree it is time to look ahead. However, I also agree with Andy when he says that Mark Kirk's support for the bill is indefensible. I DO live in the 10th. I have two small children (ages 1 and 5). This bill will seriously cripple our economy in 10-15 years. I hear all of the arguments on this site that say, "Don't worry...this bill will be changed in the Senate. Mark didn't really agree with the bill - he wants it changed." Then WHY did he vote for it?!?! On some of your previous posts, you say you are against the provisions of the bill. I don't think the 10th is incompatible with a fiscal conservative. I realize some of the social issues will be "negotiable" - depending on who you are talking to...but fiscal conservatism sells!!!
I also don't appreciate you calling someone who disagrees with you "a close-minded fascist". How does that further the dialogue?
Also, you didn't address what Andy brought up - that two Democrats in Illinois were able to vote against - because of Republicans like Kirk. Why did they vote against? Because they knew their constituents (who elected DEMOCRATS) - wouldn't appreciate the massive tax increases.
I can only hope that he redeems himself with the health care issue - because I am not impressed with his stance on this issue.
BTW - there have been only 3 big fiscal issues this presidency thus far - the stimulus, the budget, and the cap-and-trade. Mark is only batting .667. Good in baseball, but not in politics (as far as I am concerned). If we can only count on him 2 out of 3 times to do the right thing from an economic standpoint - then by definition we cannot count on him.
Everyone please enjoy the 4th!!!!!!
God Bless America!
Father of two boys
TA,
You said:
"I don't think I've ever defended the cap and trade bill on substance. Admittedly Mark's explanation, while some parts have merit, have not entirely convinced me, and I could easily argue either side."
I wish you would defend it. I'd love to hear what parts you find that have merit. Truthfully though, I do not believe you could "easily argue either side" Your resistance to actually say any resembling critical thinking in regard to this bill, and the speed with which you resort to ad hominem attacks betray your lack of seriousness as a political commenter.
This 'dumb type' at least appreciates your recognition that some of us in the 10th District (and elsewhere in Illinois) have courage and convictions. Perhaps you should pay attention.
If you think about it Foster voted against C&T because his challenger is Hastert's son. I would bet the conservatives will vote for Foster because he voted against the bill and because of their dislike for the Hasterts.
TA Said: Andy- overlooking the fact that we in the 10th District have an issue with folks outside the District telling us what to think and whom to vote for..."
Wow! And I thought Obama sounded like an Elitist! Even though I don't live in the 10th (did grow up there, but don't live there now) please remember that Mr. Kirk's (R-IL?) vote for ACES WOULD impact me and my family too!
I would agree that whoever is mayor of your 'burb is none of my concern, because he has no power to raise my taxes or vote to take away my rights!
Whether you admit it or not, Kirk screwed the pooch last week and sincerely hope that he goes down in flames!
Here's some more deep thoughts for you:
Of the laundry list of "good" votes that your boy Kirk has done, which ones were done with his vote actually meaning the difference between a bill passing or failing?
The only one that comes quickly to mind (and that he should get credit for) is when all the Republicans stood their ground and voted against the $787 Million Dollar stimulus. That was a key vote, and his courage was seen and appreciated.
The problem, though, is that Kirk rarely draws the courage to vote the "right" way, but has plenty of courage to follow Nancy Pelosi on Abortion, Guns, and Environmental Wackos concerns, while sticking it to the GOP!
TA Said: Andy- overlooking the fact that we in the 10th District have an issue with folks outside the District telling us what to think and whom to vote for..."
Wow! And I thought Obama sounded like an Elitist! Even though I don't live in the 10th (did grow up there, but don't live there now) please remember that Mr. Kirk's (R-IL?) vote for ACES WOULD impact me and my family too!
I would agree that whoever is mayor of your 'burb is none of my concern, because he has no power to raise my taxes or vote to take away my rights!
Whether you admit it or not, Kirk screwed the pooch last week and sincerely hope that he goes down in flames!
Here's some more deep thoughts for you:
Of the laundry list of "good" votes that your boy Kirk has done, which ones were done with his vote actually meaning the difference between a bill passing or failing?
The only one that comes quickly to mind (and that he should get credit for) is when all the Republicans stood their ground and voted against the $787 Million Dollar stimulus. That was a key vote, and his courage was seen and appreciated.
The problem, though, is that Kirk rarely draws the courage to vote the "right" way, but has plenty of courage to follow Nancy Pelosi on Abortion, Guns, and Environmental Wackos concerns, while sticking it to the GOP!
One more thing for you TA. Maybe you should have a form that people need to fill out before they can comment on a story. If they don't enter a ZIP code within the 10th District, then they don't get to comment. If you need to know how to implement one, give Mark Kirk a call. That's how he limits his exposure from us "dumb" and "close-minded facists". Remember, though, his votes have consequences for everyone in Illinois and the country.
By they way, I'd bet Mark Kirk (R-IL?) would take my money, despite not living in his district.
'Nuf 'Sed.
I feel like an interloper on the Andy and Richard show. I just wish that you guys would look at ALL of Congressman Mark Kirk's votes in this current Congress and those cast since his election to the Congress. What in the hell is wrong with you guys? I'm tired of all the re-hashing, the back stabbing and incessant crap you're throwing at him and never once acknowledging the fact that he has voted AGAINST, especially since this current administration has come into power. TA gives you a forum to vent. You've done so. Can you move on and recognize that tomorrow is another day or are you going to continue reguritating the same old, same old until the cows come home. Get a grip. Get a life.
Nice Try Team America - A couple of items you left off your list of Mark Kirk's record: pro-abortion voting against late term abortion ban and also anti 2nd Amendment - given a "D" by the NRA....just want to fill in the voids I'm sure you "accidently" left out. You might be able to convince other that Kirk's record is a tootsie-roll but I know a dog turd when I see one....
To the conservatives.
As TA, Baxters Mom, King Louis, and anonymous Kirk staffers can attest, I rip him as much as anyone on this blog. Largely because I think he's not a good partyman. But,
On the one hand conservatives really don't have much room to talk smack against Mark. While other states have elected conservatives in the last 30 years (I think massachusettes, maryland, hawaii, and maybe one other state are the only ones that have elected as few republicans) Illinois hasn't. Conservatives can either get Mark realizing he'll be with them 50% of the time at best, or get some tool like lisa madigan who will be with them 0 percent.
Given how few republicans there are in the senate, it's worth weighing whether you are ready to wait another 2 years for a shot at durbin or until 2016 to get a 2nd shot at madigan/alexi. Either way, you are looking at not getting a conservative. At least with Mark, you can always threaten to primary him to keep him on his toes for 6 years, which given that better days will come for the party, will have meaning behind it. You'll also have a guy with you on taxes and national security and at least someone you can threaten for not voting the right way on social issues. You'll recall that Arlen Specter (before he turned traitor) as a moderate pro-choice republican quickly succombed to conservative pressure in 2004 and put through Alito and Roberts.
Something to consider.
FOKLAES
So, apparently, it is good to be against equal pay, infrastructure improvements (including those in the 10th District), and vital funding for each State. Where would Illinois and California be without the Stimulus package? (What's wrong with a Summer teen jobs program?)
That's Patriotic this July 4th. ):
I bet you guys are glad that the number of uninsured went up by about 4-5 million under Bush. This supposition is based upon no tangible desire to help these and other people from those on the right. (We have to allow United HealthCare and Blue Cross Licensees to reap profits AND we MUST continue letting banks who are getting tax-payer funds to lobby!)
When will being a Republican stop being anti-Joe Average American
(plumber or otherwise)?
When will toeing the party line no longer supercede doing what is right for one's District?
Also, unemployment is at its highest rate in 26 years. WHO, pray tell, was President back then?
The person Kirk, Romney, McCain, et Al try their darndest to emulate: Reagan!
And it cannot be legitimately stated that the extremely high unemployment rate is solely the fault of Obama. George, Kirk, McCain and the 'free-market,' no regulation minions worked hard to bring this about.
Given that you are known by whom you associate with, I'm glad that Kirk, Bush, Jr., McCain, Palin (I'm sorry, the quitter), Ensign, Sanford (do I hear 4 mistresses?), Rush and Sean aren't part of any organization that I affiliate with.
I think some of you may have misunderstand my objections to Kirk and his vote. I don't expect Kirk to agree with me on many issues. I understand that his positions on guns, abortion, global warming, and his insanely condescending assertion a few years ago that cleaning up Waukegan's harbor would add $53,000 in value to the average Waukegan home, etc... do not reflect my views.
For the most part I respect the principled stand he has taken on some of these issues even if I don't agree with him.
TA, you said that some of us may be happy with the courage of our convictions, but not Kirk. That is the point. You're kidding yourself if you think Kirk can be reliable in the future.
He has taken a stand for himself and his own political future in this vote. There is no evidence that this vote is in keeping with his self-proclaimed goals for energy, yet he trots them out in his message of why he voted for it.
I believe that Mark Kirk has to go, because in this vote, he was only concerned with his political future. It appears he has begun to see himself as a Career Politician above all.
Nothing is more damaging to freedom and liberty than professional politicians, as nothing serves the rent-seekers, big-business, big-oil, big-labor, big-education, etc.. better.
I understand that defeating Kirk may lead to a "worse" representative, but believe that only through turn-over in politics can we really begin to see a nation that better reflects what we celebrate this time of year.
Ignore me if you want, say I'm blowing things out of proportion, but remember this: Prior to running for the Senate, Al Gore was pro-gun, anti-abortion, and proudly pro-tobacco. Afterward he, like all career politicians, was nothing more than pro-Al Gore.
Kirk just did a telephone town hall with about 20,000 Republicans on the line. I was on the call and the focus turned to Obamacare. Kirk gave the best set of arguments I have heard against that bill.
I guess we need Kirk for the fight against Obama's health care takeover.
Anon 12:05 there were not anywhere close that number on the call tonight. Maybe, at best, a few thousand but not for the entire call. The number isn't what's important. What is important is that Kirk did get pummeled by several of the callers for his vote last Friday. He was able to explain in large measure why he voted for a flawed bill. Some were buying his reason, some were still red hot and angry.
Kirk did a far better job in talking about the Obamacare bill that will be coming up as soon as Congress goes back to work next week. Mark will be ready with what he has been working on for several months as a realistic alternative to government take over of our healthcare system. I am going to watch with interest as he does what he has done before in leading on an issue that has the potential to radically change how he access care in this country. He is ready for this debate. I hope that we are ready to give me the support he needs. We are all healthcare consumers. I like what Mark Kirk is presenting on our behalf. I hope that all of you who are eager to rid his service to this district pay close attention. It's pretty sad reading the bashing from people who really have no idea what kind of leader we have in Mark Kirk. What's worse is that you guys are unwilling and unable to even try.
Richard Dahl- thank you for your well-articulated comments and position-- but I think you and I are just going to have to agree to disagree. I know Mark Kirk fairly well and simply do not see him as the kind of 'career' politician that is out only for himself. He truly cares about his constituents. And while I can't promise you that he's never going to take another vote I won't like, I can promise you that he will continue to vote at least 70-90% of a way you'd likely approve. The alternative is to get someone who votes your way 0% of the time.
I have spoken to many like you who seem to think that once we get a dyed--in-the-wool raging liberal in there instead of Kirk, the voters of the 10th District will instantly realize their mistake and flock to whatever candidate the GOP throws up. You can hope for that if you like, but it ain't gonna happen.
Once that seat is lost, it's lost for the forseeable future. Even with someone like Obama running the country into the ground, there is still not nearly enough of a backlash to indicate anything except a smooth ride to re-election for him. The advantages of incumbency and fundraising are extremely hard to overcome. Play out that same scenario on a smaller level in IL-10 with a Dan Seals and tell me it's wise to make the 'investment' to get rid of Mark Kirk to endure years of some liberal doofus (who is all the while entrenching himself/herself while raising money --look at Michael Bond in the state sentate as a good example), to have some hope of getting a 'better' representative down the road. Even Melissa Bean has poven pretty much impossible to excise, and the 8th is a much more conservative district than the 10th.
Thanks, but no thanks. Mark Kirk all the way.
Team America - I'm just about to leave for the Crystal Lake July 4th Tea Party. Even though we're in Congressman Manzullo's District (IL-16) quite a few of us have "Dump Kirk" posters. I've listened to Kirk's explanation and he is indeed a man of his convictions - he is also in reality a closet Democrat - as are you. I would have much greater respect for the both of you if you came clean and just switched parties. Remember old Paul Simon - Democrat Senator from Illinois? Paul was about as far left as you could get but he was honest about it. I disagreed with Paul on nearly everything but respected the man for his courage to embrace and defend his liberal causes - no half measures, no tortured explanations - if you didn't like what he had to say at least you knew the man was honest intellectually. One can have meaningful debate with intellectually honest individuals even if the points of view are poles apart - conversely, debating with a person who claims he is something he isn't, is a waste of time. On that note I will leave this blog. Happy July 4th and may God Bless America!
Good riddance, "Mike."
It's clear you are one of those people that believe that if someone does not measure up 100% to what YOUR idea/ideal is of a Republican, he or she must be a Democrat. At least Ronald Regan disagreed with you.
Don't let the Blog door hit you on the way out.
I only wish that others who share "Mike's" philosophy who exist, stage LEFT. It's getting more than tiring reading the opinions of those who KNOW that Mark Kirk is a Democrat. I'm sick and tired of those who feel that whatever he says or does is a HUGE disappointment to them. I agree with you, TA, don't let the door hit you on your way out. My hope is that they take their damn one-sided, lopsided and totally out of order attacks and park them where they belong. First thought would be on old Ms. Gill's thing she calls a blog. Yuck.
Team America said:
>>At least Ronald Regan disagreed with you.<<
Gee TA, "Ronald Regan"??? Really?? Man, what kind of true Republican would EVER misspell Reagan's last name?!
Oh, please. Slay me for a typo. I notice you don't address the point, which is of course that REAGAN said, if you agree with me 80% of the time, you are my friend. You also seem to forget the 11th Commandment, which is, thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican.
I may not be able to type, but I can quote Reagan too.
Maybe you should try living up to his ideals, or shut the heck up.
I remain bitterly unhappy with Kirk's vote on Cap and Trade. I think he was dead wrong on this issue.
I am however, a Republican who recognizes that I will never assist or vote for a candidate who agrees with my political views 100% of the time. We are all different, we dress differently, we act differently, etc. The day the GOP demands that I wear a red arm band and march in a mindless lockstep like a Communist Party or a Fascist Party will never arrive. Because I would never agree to blindly and unquestioning follow anyone in such a fashion.
No litmus test. Ever. Period. Our Founding Fathers of this Great Nation never envisioned blind adherence to a platform. They had a vision of open ideas, freedom and extensive debate and competing views. And we should remember this on the 4th of July.
I was with Mark Kirk from the day he first announced he was running in the 10th. I'm still with him. I'm staying with him.
I find the Dahl(s) arguments interesting but not totally persuasive. For starters, by voting for the "Green" candidate (who was once a party official of a socialist party) instead of Judy Barr Topinka, you were one of those who assisted in the complete Democratic domination and destruction of the State of Illinois. Thanks buddy!
But where I get confused with the Roeser crowd types is that they can walk away from Republican Topinka, vote for the "Green" guy who was once a socialist party official, and pretend that THEY were not turncoats.
Kirk votes against the party in the meantime, and HE becomes a turncoat. I support Kirk even though I believe he screwed up, and I BECOME a turncoat.
You can't have it both ways.
As Moraine Township GOP Chairman, I can attest in my region that Kirk draws more votes than any other Republican candidate who runs for office in my area. His views and stances are more in keeping with what the views of his constituents are. He REPRESENTS them. That's how it is supposed to work.
You represent your district by listening to those you are representing, then advocating those positions on their behalf. At least, that's how I learned it in civics class. Where Kirk failed recently is that I don't believe he was listening to the right people in the district.
We will never elect Republicans if we demand that they adhere to the rigidity of the "platform" Republicans (who stray from the platform and party themselves frequently themselves). Nor should we expect to sway voters to vote Republican under the same circumstances.
I won't let Kirk forget about my disagreement with him over his recent vote on Cap and Trade.
But I will back him 1,000% for reelection or for any other office he runs for in the future.
Because I remain a good Republican who refuses to stray from the field and wants to win back more seats and keep the ones we have.
Happy fourth of July from where I'm typing this right now, in a park in San Francisco overlooking the Golden Gate Bridge.
Gorgeous view. And I'll be sitting here again tonight for the fireworks show.
Louis G. Atsaves
Just got back from both the Arlington Heights Parade and the Tea Party in Palatine. Pics are on my blog. There was a lot of the ant-Kirk at both, and no Kirk at the parade. I can usually count on seeing him, but didn't this time.
For clarification: I voted Green for Governor (only) because there was no candidate that represented my beliefs. Judy Barr Topinka was not a rational choice.
I chose the Green party strategically, hoping that in future elections the far left wackos would fraction the Dems.
One other thought for you 80/20 Republicans:
if your spouse is cheating on you, where do you draw the line? If they are only cheating 20% of the time, that's okay?
Remember, it's not that Kirk doesn't support "the platform" 100% of the time... It's that he actively supports the opposition's platform about 40% of the time. His Cap-n-Tax vote will actually help strengthen Democrats in Illinois in two ways.
1) Bill Foster and Jerry Costello were able to vote No on the bill, strengthening their reelection bids
2) Kirk will most likely lose his seat
If he loses just 10% of his base, he's toast!
Andy- as cheap a shot as it is, I suggest you ask Mrs. Sanford about the 80/20 scenario. I was at the Lake County Republican Federation dinner with Mark Sanford where he was only too happy to preach to the crowd about the purity of one's convinctions, and to criticize so-called RINOs. (The local right-wingers were only too happy to point that out, too- they LOVE labeling people RINOs.)
And you know happened with the Sanford scenario.
Andy-
Keep on truckin', man. Really, anything you can do to further your goals, I approve of. You want to primary Kirk? Feel free. I'll give money. You want Kirk to not run for Senate? Awesome. My favorite candidate could use a free ride. You want moderate Republicans to all become Democrats? Guess what? Me too! You want conservative Republicans to vote 3rd party? Again...me too! See, Democrats like me and Republicans like Dahl do have something in common.
LOL, Tikki. The fact we know you're serious makes it even funnier. I wonder if people like Andy realize that this inter-party puritanical warfare just makes the Dems laugh at us.
Andy, are you getting it yet? Maybe we'll send you to Lauren Beth Gash's 10th Dems U to help you figure it out.
Andy, love your logic. Thanks buster! Because of folks who think like you, we are being hammered with all kinds of tax and fee increases and government falling apart faster than a multiple train wreck. Soon, a 50% or 75% income tax increase as icing on the cake? Thanks buddy! Nice "strategic" vote for the former socialist. And you claim to be a "conservative?" Nothing like "conservative" logic that betrays conservatism. And I've heard the weak bleatings of those of you who would have claimed that Topinka was a tax and spender in disguise. Pathetic!
Using your wife cheating example, are you telling me that if you catch your wife cheating on you, you immediately toss her out of the house and divorce her, after of course, painting a Scarlet Letter on her? In the real world, many people forgive their spouses and look to reconcile when that happens.
But clearly you belong to the one transgression, you are doomed to eternal hell political brigade.
But thanks again for voting for the former Secretary of the Socialist Party by voting "Green."
That certainly "helped."
Anything other "strategic" moves up your sleeve?
Time you people WOKE UP!
Louis G. Atsaves
Andy makes legit points. The term moderate republican means squat these days because mark and mckenna spend more time helping bangladeshis and trying to sell the cubs than they do party building.
Andy is also wrong, Mark votes liberal about 50 percent of the time according to national journal. That means he votes democrat on enviornment, social issues, spending, foreign aid, ect and conservative on national security and some taxes.
Andy is right, Judy Baar Topinka was a Pinko. John McGovern, Kirk's savior in 2000 did a crappy job on that campaign.
Andy is totally wrong. Electing kirk to the senate won't dilute the party there. He'd be only the 3rd pro-choicer along with collins and snowe of maine. What's more he would have to worry for 6 years about the threat of being primaried and so could be brought to heel on issues like judges, guns, and abortion-remember the republican primary field is much much more conservative outside this district. Plus, he'd be more open to conservatives than alexi soprano and little minded lisa.
If Mark had a communications or political operation that was national quality right now they'd be making that case to conservatives that this is their only shot for the next 4 years to stop obama. A conservative can't win, and at least mark would be open to listening to them. Beggars don't choose. They'd also make the case to conservatives that electing democratic moderates allowed the dem party to do more liberal stuff, and electing mark would empower the conservative base, which again dominates the party.
FOKLAES
King Louis,
Please realize it was moderate Andy McKenna that ran out of town Peter Fitzgerald. Please realize it is moderate Ray LaHood who became one of the worst political turncoats in modern political history by working for obama. Please also realize that it is better to let democrats screw up then elect a true conservative republican team, than to win with a half baked republican team that screws up the way Mark's dirty thug mentor Hastert screwed up congress.
Most democrats will tell you they prefer obama to carter and clinton. Why? Because obama was the real deal for their liberal wretched man/america/freedom/prosperity hating souls. As well Republicans don't like George W. Bush who mark foolishly endorsed in the 2000 primary over john mccain as you recall because unlike reagan he wasn't a true conservative.
FOKLAES
TA said: "Once that seat is lost, it's lost for the forseeable future...snip...and tell me it's wise to make the 'investment' to get rid of Mark Kirk to endure years of some liberal doofus (who is all the while entrenching himself/herself while raising money ...snip...Even Melissa Bean has poven pretty much impossible to excise, and the 8th is a much more conservative district than the 10th."
I couldn't have said it better, TA. If people think that getting rid of Mark Kirk is the answer, they need only look over to the 8th District.
What's obvious after reading all of the posts today is that a whole lot of chatter is just that, a whole lot of chatter that means absolutely nothing.
Mark Kirk IS our Congressman. Mark Kirk doesn't deservet to be trashed and talked about as though he has been some sort of misfit in a sea of sterling leaders. Good lord, people, can we all just sit back, stop all of this damn carping and hand wringing and hoping that he'll fold his tent and just get the hell out of here.
Lou Atsaves makes sense. Nobody will agree with everything anyone says and does 100% of the time. That's a given. To take Mark Kirk's guts out and beat the snot out of his every move is something we expect from the likes of the 10th Dems and their pitiful leaders. Guess who keeps winning each election? I think his name is Mark Steven Kirk. I know this gauls some of you. The MAJORITY of us in this district are proud to be represented by this man.
Nothing has changed about Mark Kirk since he first claimed this seat in Congress. What HAS changed in his outstanding record of achievement on our behalf as our Congressman. He has done much more good than not so good and it's damn stupid of many of you to keep on talking about his faults and never acknowledging his strengths and his accomplishments. You want to elect a Democrat? Just be honest about what you want. The majority of the voters in this district still want to be represented by Mr. Kirk. You can be respectful in your disagreement with a particular vote. Nothing wrong with that. But to constantly deride this guy, to pick and poke and continue your tirades is just plain disgusting and disgraceful. Go find another place to air your damn words. I hope we can start a new day with a new topic. Most of all I hope we can learn to be respectful and constructive in our posts. What a concept.
Couldn't agree more, 10:18.
Ray LaHood is now a turncoat? What about William Cohen? And that Sen. Gregg fiasco where he apparently asked to be part of the Cabinet and then couldn't go through with it?
Does this mean that there should be no such thing as bi-partisanship? Should we have two countries, if compromise and working toward common goals are no longer desirable by those on the Right side of the aisle?
And for this to be said on the weekend of July 4th is of note as well.
No wonder those on the Right, despite their glossy number-less brochures and rhetoric (vote the person not the party) is considered the Party of no and that Congress under their leadership was referred to as the 'do-nothing' Congress.
While I am not suprised to see this kind of divisiveness, I am in no way pleased to see that nothing gets in the way of Partisanship and trying to be 'right' for the sake of being right.
If you are not a part of the solution (compromise, negotiation, and work toward common goals), you are part of the problem if not the entire problem.
And, as a 'pre-emptive strike,' I don't recall Bush having people from the Left side of the aisle over to the White House unless he thought it was politically expedient which was quite rare.
As may have been suggested when Bush was President, regardless of one's poltiical affiliation, the wishing for failure, the press conferences and empty brochures ad nauseum, and the hypocrisy coming from some of those on the Right (McConnell thinks that there's NO PROBLEM with our current, costly and incomplete healthcare system), we need to be less divisive, to come together more often, and actually work on healthcare reform, the care of the planet we've been put in charge of temporarily, and make the US more competitive.
This does no happen with increased foreign ownership or indebtedness (which began under Bush).
This does not happen via the constant labeling of those who don't toe one specific approach to governance.
This does not happen solely through having unique people at yearly dinners and marching in parades.
Something to think about. Of course, the rubber-stampers on the Right may not be used to thinking for themselves.
Post a Comment