1

O/T Obama pronounces Corpsmen as Corpse-men TWICE at the national prayer breakfast.

 

Presidential speechs to be added to teleprompter now in phonetical vernacular. That must have been some Columbia/Harvard degree.

2

Thank you!  There are RINOs, and there are opportunities for seats that are gifts from God.  This is the latter. 

Plus, the Polish guy's going to be governor.  That's can be for tea partiers, and Kirk can be for everyone who wants to see <49 Dems in the Senate.

3 Kirk! Kirk! Kirk! Kirk! Kirk!

4

Obama pronounces Corpsmen as Corpse-men TWICE at the national prayer breakfast.

Look at him turn on that Negro dialect.

 

5
I just don't want the moderates and RINOs to get uppity.

As long as they know their place...

6 I wish to publicly withdraw my cries of RINO about Kirk.  I heard him on Hewitt's show two nights ago, and he sounded good, even advocating cutting off Iran's gasoline imports.

7 Going home with a 5 is always better than going home alone.

Vote for Kirk!

8 Khaaaaaaan!!

9
As long as he votes with the R's that's fine, but if he goes Snarlin' Arlen there's going to be lots of blame to be cast.  A repub that votes with the dems is useless, and we already have 3 too many of them.

10 I think Giannulias should win everything open in Illinois. He's awesome. Don't you schmucks like the Sopranos?

11

Mark Kirk is Tom Coburn compared to us.

12 OK.  Go, Kirk!
Once he wins, how long until he can be replaced?

Is this for a full term, or what?

The people of Illinois need to get off their asses and find some folks for the next round who actually believe in the Constitution.

13 I just want my Country back and get back to normal whatever that is, so if it takes a Kirk win I'm in.

14
Seriously, this is why I hate moderates.

They (read: McCain, Hagel, etc) take a shit on conservatives, of both the fiscal and social type, just to score points with the so-called independents. That really pisses me off.

They pander to liberal-leaning swing-voters by slapping us, their base, around and mocking us.

15 Much shorter Ace: Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

16

Agghhh, I'm raising my blood pressure just by reading these ridiculous anti-Kirk comments.

Sounds like this guy needs to take a walk on the Peace Blimp.

17
PUPPEHS!

18 There are RINOs, and there are opportunities for seats that are gifts from God.  This is the latter.

Yep.  The price is right.  Free.  What's the alternative?

19 Amen Ace

20

A good plan today is better than a perfect plan tomorrow...or something like that...

21 Two years of holding the Senate aren't that much, esp. when we won't get any legislation signed anyway.  Taking the House will instantly shut down Barry's agenda.

Anyway, it doesn't matter:  Kirk will win, for better and for worse.  There's certainly no point in cheerleading for him though.

22
alright, enough with ass-kissing

23 Chairman Inhofe -- I wonder how fast Gore, Mann, and Hansen can get out of the country.

24
Politics is always about the less of two evils.  Always.
Perfection?  rarely on le menu.

25
We're not gonna win the Senate, anyway.

The best course of action for us is to focus on winning the House, for the reason mentioned above by Someone.

26 Maybe we could resolve this issue if we all pitched in $10 and rented a blimp. 

27 It takes a lot of GOP Senators to get the right kind of SCOTUS nominees approved and the wrong kind off the bench.

Think about that the next time you want to make good the enemy of best.

28 I'm down with Kirk more or less. But I would like to see him make real amends for his crap-and-tax vote.

29

Kirk is about the best that can be hoped for.

There's no comparison to the stupidity that was NY-23.  That district was one in which a conservative could win, but they chose a flaming RINO instead, using the flawed Beltway logic that moderate = more electable.

If Brown and/or Kirk turn out to be another Specter or Snowe, then we'll have reason to complain.  Otherwise, a win is a win- one that wouldn't happen with a Pure Conservative.

Don't let perfect become the enemy of good, folks.  Our side has a chance to win big in November.

30 >>We're not gonna win the Senate, anyway.<<

Not if you don't buy a ticket.

31 The point is the more votes R's have the more committees we have votes.  Any new part-time republicans we have are going to be low on the totem pole anyway, lets get them in.

32 >>>We're not gonna win the Senate, anyway. >>>The best course of action for us is to focus on winning the House, for the reason mentioned above by Someone. ah yes, the famously effective "let's just give up" strategy.

33

lets take one issue: global warming. Want a serious congressional investigation of the science behind global warming - then you need someone like Tom Colburn chairing a committee with subpoena power to investigate. To do that, you need someone like Kirk to win to get there

They'll just ignore the sa-peenies

34

Lookit.  We need borderlin-RINOs from blue states.  And we need real goddamned conservatives from purple and red states.  That's how we get past this Godawful 60-40 clusterfuck and a 78 seat deficit in the House.

 

Mass did our part- we gave America a hawkish, fiscally moderate-to-conservative, socially moderate-to-liberal Senator.  Looks like Illinois will be no better.

 

But with 42, we can afford to see one RINO flip and we can still keep the bastards out of our pockets.  This is important.  This is good.

35 When your opponent fumbles on his side of the field, you gotta punch it in.

36 Ace +eleventy!!!1!!1!!!111!

37 Connery also said "Losers always whine about their best."

38 You're calling *me* out as a defeatist?  Epic lulz.

39 beedubya - Committee Chairmen also direct the GAO. Nothing scares a Fed more then the GAO.

40 Sorry, nothing coherent or factual in this post. And I was ready to be persuaded.

There is a line between a RINO and a DIABLO, and the line starts where it is actually better to have a nominally more liberal D than an R who is a real embarrassment and a creep who supports far left issues such as partial birth abortions and cap and trade.
 
Convice us Kirk is a RINO, that's all we ask. But you can't. So you drivel about fuzzy feelings we would have in unseating a D. Insulting, really.

41 The bottom lines, as far as I'm concerned: one more (R) in the senate instead of a Chicago Machine whore-bot, and another symbolic political kick in the nads to President Dreamboat. If that gets done through a squishy moderate like Mark Kirk, so be it. We're talking about Illinois (I grew up downstate)...there are some good solid rock-ribbed (R) parts, but those aren't where there are lots of people. So the only way to do it is to appeal to squishy independents in and around Chicagoland, who could easily be herded away from a "pure" conservative. Kirk will just have to do.

42

I voted for Hughes, but will now support Kirk. There was a fair primary, so now it is time to defeat the corrupt neo marxist dem.

43 "Going home with a 5 is always better than going home alone. Vote for Kirk!" Lmao, so much win in that comment. Nicely done sifty.

44

I'm down with Kirk more or less.

But I would like to see him make real amends for his crap-and-tax vote.

He already walked back on it.  What more do you want?  For him to drive around in a Hummer H1 while setting random forest fires?  Maybe strangling a few baby seals for good measure?

Public opinion has turned sharply against cap and trade; there's little reason for him to join the non-existant Global Warming bandwagon.

45 I want my WH back and all of the odumbass pictures (I'll let them keep one for decorum) piled out in the driveway and burned, whatever it takes I'll back folks like Kirk!

46 I got nothing, I just want to say what a delightful analysis has been presented here. Politics is ultimately pragmatic, utility is all.

47 >>>orry, nothing coherent or factual in this post. And I was ready to be persuaded. Eh, I strongly suspect you don't vote anyway and largely view politics as purely a game of internet-fighting.

48

Count me in behind Kirk.  I was determined to back the GOP primary winner, whoever it would be.  I mean, does anyone really think the Dems will nominate someone as good, let alone better?  After the lies profffered by "Blue Dogs" or "moderates" like Nelson, Lincoln and Casey in their campaigns I would not buy any Dem for Senate who claims to be on Kirk's right on anything.

There's still Rubio to hope for!

49 Mark Kirk really is very similar to Scott Brown.  I would say that Brown is more conservative than Kirk on fiscal matters, but they are very close.  Kirk just has 10 years of House votes to use against him.  That ACU rating is pretty weak by GOP standards.

Kirk can win in Illinois.  He can win by as many as 10 points with a good campaign.

His cap and tax vote was a mistake.  He has acknowledged that.  He says he regrets that vote.  What else can he do for you on this issue?  Kirk's energy proposal is a comprehensive package.  He's going to support ethanol because I don't know any statewide candidate in the midwest that has run against ethanol funding and won.

I wonder if any Kirk doubters can name the last "real conservative" to win a statewide race in Illinois that wasn't running against a corrupt Democrat with active investigations looming over them.

Every GOP candidate in statewide IL races starts off down 7 points.  And that's even if it is a fiscal liberal and socially liberal GOP candidate.

50 All this Kirk talk makes me want to come up with a Captain Kirk joke. But how can I top the Shat himself? Flipping through channels last night, I saw his talk show on Bio. I am amazed he has a talk show. Shatner was interviewing... Weird Al Yankovic. It took me an hour to convince myself I hadn't taken a hallucinogen.

51 Did anyone really think we'd be favored to take Obama's seat? Did anyone think this was even possible?

There's wasn't a prayer in hell at the time Obama gave up the seat. And there's still not a prayer that an inexperienced candidate, without a solid voter base and name recognition,  could win it.

If we win this, it's a gift. Go, Kirk!

52 It's the perfect storm for R's in Illinois.  Blago trial in June will keep the D's corruption in the spot-light all summer long.  As I mentioned in the "Alexi, get me a juicebox outta the fridge and some cash outta the freezer" thread, if Congressman Kirk were to head downstate to COAL COUNTRY, repudiate cap'n tax and talk up tapping IL's coal resources--he'd be looking at perhaps a 20-25% blowout.  Reember, a little over a year aog, Joe Biden said the Dem's wanted to destroy the coal industry...should put PA, WV, OH, IN and IL US house and senate seats in play for the R's

53 We have a voice now thanks to the tea parties, whomever we get in there we'll be able able to change them with our calls and emails, don't stop now folks VOTE, we have them in our sights!

54
Eh, I strongly suspect you don't vote anyway and largely view politics as purely a game of internet-fighting.

Posted by: ace at February 04, 2010 02:00 PM (jlvw3)

Not without an absentee ballot, so that kinda limits me. But I am serious, not trolling, and even if your knee jerk reaction prevents you from answering me, you do owe an answer to others who agree with the type of argument I present.

55 I'm definitely no saint.

56

ah yes, the famously effective "let's just give up" strategy.

Works for us!

Me too

57

Even if we could magically choose between a win in Illinois and a win in Connecticut, it's not like the people bitching about Kirk would be happy.  We'd either get Rob Simmons, whose record I'm pretty sure is to the left of Kirk's, or Nancy McMahon, who talks a nice game but was giving lots of dough to Democrats pretty recently.  And because Conn is even more liberal than Illinois is, there would be even more pressure for the winner to vote with the dems if they have any interest in a second term.

Do these fucking idiots think liberals are HAPPY with Ben Nelson, Landrieu, etc?  No, but they tolerate them because they are smart enough to know that 70 or 60 or even 45% is a lot better than 0%, which is what they would get from those states otherwise.

58 While Kirk isn't my ideal candidate, this IS Illinois we're talking about. Think Chinatown, midwest, write large. My lefty sister-in-law lives in Chicago and is appalled that this racist-bigot-homophobe-evil-RethugliKKKan wants to fill The Won's seat. If Kirk is good enough to send her into screaming fits, he's good enough for me.

Think about this for a minute: in November 2008, the Democrats were ascendant. All of their dreams had come true. They elected their ideal Socialist-in-Chief and had huge majorities in both houses of Congress. Life in the US was about to change forever. Now fast forward a little more than a year. A Republican won Ted freaking Kennedy's seat in Massachusetts and it's now becoming more than possible that a Republican could win the anointed One's seat in IL. I speak as a  real rightwing conservative purist (mostly): how in hell is that not good enough for you? Did someone take the stupid club to you, set it on automatic and then walk away?

Listen: I lived through the post-Watergate/Carter era. I remember full well what life is like when the Democrats control everything. And now the rest of the country knows what I know. Are you really willing to piss it away? I will add the caveat that I'd almost be willing to piss it away in exchange for McCain being retired out of the Senate.

59 The dem in that race is so horrifyingly awful, arrogant, and just plain slimy that Kirk is a real clear alternative in the right direction.

And, if the groundwork is laid during this cycle, and Kirk wins, then Durbin can be targeted.  And I want that fat fuck out of the Senate almost as bad as I want Schumer gone.

60 He already walked back on it. What more do you want? For him to drive around in a Hummer H1 while setting random forest fires? Maybe strangling a few baby seals for good measure?" What more do I want? I want Republican Senators to not fall in love with spurious inflationary and tax-increase programs based on phony economics. Will Kirk pull his head out regarding future kleptocratic Washington "reforms"? Hell if I know. Crap-and-tax is far more reprehensible than just its alliance with the AGW religion, you see. Don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of Kirk and what he means to Republican recovery in the Senate. I know what his candidacy means. But nobody around here is going to convince me to wet myself with excitement over this guy.

61 If the Senate can go back to GOP control...think of another big one....SC nominations.  There's more than one justice looking to retire...

62 I'm a near purist. I get it he's the best we'll get.

Kirk! Kirk! Kirk!

Happy?

63 This is the problem with what I call the Krakatoa Method of Achieving Political Awesomeness. It basically asserts that the Left getting power and going apeshit will solidify the Right, fix the GOP, and lead to a conservative resurgence. Well, it doesn't quite work that way. Yes, the ideas of the Right are gaining strength all over the country. Yes, there seems to be a resurgence in states that would normally be considered lost causes. However, places like Illinois still aren't going to elect the type of people that Oklahoma might. So what we'll end up with is a majority in Congress that is populated by a minority of "moderates" or RHINOs. And that's basically where we were before 2006. Only now we have an even bigger hill to climb in terms of policy.

64

You know, from a practical standpoint, there is another bonus to getting so-called RINOs into historically blue seats.  It forces the Dems to spend money on seats during election cycles that, before, were cheap and easily retained.  That's money that can't be spent in swing states, or on moderate Dems running for historically red seats. 

So, we pick up a vote that will potentially keep the county from going bankrupt while forcing the opposition to expend resources they wouldn't otherwise be spending in those particular races. 

That's win-win in my book.

65 Juicer: Here's a "fact:" My candidate actually exists in the real world whereas yours does not. Please respond. This seems a large political disadvantage you start with, your candidate not existing and all.

66 26 Maybe we could resolve this issue if we all pitched in $10 and rented a blimp.

Posted by: Y-not at February 04, 2010 01:49 PM (sey23)

For some reason this calls to mind the float made by the Delta house for the homecoming parade.

Wherever the Peace blimp goes, so should the Moron blimp.

And it should scroll many messages.That would be awesome!

67

The guys over at Hillbuzz have said repeatedly that the Democrats were hoping that Kirk would win, because apparently his wife is a beard.  I don't know if it is true or not, but it sounds like it is well-known in those circles, and it is something that the Dems plan on using at the last minute to torpedo his chances of winning.

They seem to feel that if he gets out ahead of the story and comes clean about all of this it will take the air out of the Dem's sails, but they don't see this happening.  Hopefully, the electorate can look past this, but I don't know what their feelings are on this subject.

I'm not from Illinois, so I don't have a dog in this hunt, but I sure do want to see as many Republicans/Independents winning in November.  I'm not sure how one would go about getting this out now, before it becomes a toxic issue.....

68 Another point - with the country's mood the way it is, "moderates" have moved to the right.  Any "moderate" we get now would have been considered a rabid right winger 5 years ago.

69

Not without an absentee ballot, so that kinda limits me. But I am serious, not trolling, and even if your knee jerk reaction prevents you from answering me, you do owe an answer to others who agree with the type of argument I present.

Try to present an argument that consists of more than "you suck, more conservative candidates are better than more liberal candidates".

As it stands now, no one has a fucking clue what point you're even attempting to make as it relates to Kirk and the Illinois election.

70 For some reason this calls to mind the float made by the Delta house for the homecoming parade.

Ah yes, the Deathmobile!  I always wanted to build one of those...

71 Politics is the art of the possible.

Politics is the art of marketing.  Politics is the art of advertising. 

Marketing and advertising are about telling your idiot customers what they should want (i.e., your product).  It's about pushing their emotional buttons so hard and so often that they feel absolutely COMPELLED to forgo paying the rent just to buy what you're selling. 

Marketing is not about passively listening to customers, and letting them tell you what to sell to them.  It's just not.  It's about manufacturing consumer demand for your product. 

But no one in politics knows anything worth a shit about marketing or advertising.  They think that TV spot with the wolf-with-the-red eyes crap is a state-of-the-art ad.  It's not.  It's a fucking joke. 

If you want genuine, conservative, pro-market, anti-socialist change in government, conservatives need to learn how to be better marketers.  The Left is better at marketing than the Right.  They have been for a long time.  They own the media, and the media knows marketing.  The fact that the Dems are losing so badly right now is 20% attributable to improved Republican marketing, and 80% attributable to Democrat stupidity.  Their recent losses are a testament to their utter corruption and avarice.  Only they are dumb enough to fuck up a super-majority/White House combo.  It's like the Star Wars prequels -- astronomical success should have been a lay-up, a gimmie, but they somehow found a way to turn it into shit.  Republicans shouldn't praise themselves too much for Democrat self-defeat. 

The Republicans could blast out a super-majority of their own, with a fire-breathing, rock-ribbed, free-market, small-government agenda, if they knew how to market it properly.  The right kind of clear marketing message, properly delivered (by them, not by sideline pundits) would CREATE the demand among voters for the conservative message. 

The Republicans don't need to be passive followers of voter opinion.  When passivity is your marketing strategy, then the Dems end up controlling the message, and the Republicans end up selling a watered-down, milquetoast version of the Democrat message, which no one wants.  (See, e.g., McCain, John.)

72

I live in California but donated to the Hughes campaign.  I agree that if it were possible to turn back time a couple of months, it would be a desirable outcome to build momentum behind Hughes so that he could win the primary.

Absent a working time machine, however, you work with what you got.  Right now, the GOP has Kirk, and the GOP needs Kirk to win.  And conservatives need the GOP to take back the Senate or get as close to it as possible, because the damage the Democrats are doing to the USA is palpable to everyone to the right of Cindy Sheehan.

73 Will he vote to stop the spending insanity?

Will he vote against any major new government expansions?

Will he vote for some contractions (assuming the Republicans ever get to propose any)?

Is he tough on terrorists?

Is he not (yet) corrupt?

That's about good enough for now....

74 you do owe an answer to others who agree with the type of argument I present.
Posted by: Juicer

You had an argument?

75 to take the senate we need like ten seats (a tie doesn't help us get there, as Slow Joe casts the tiebreaking vote). There are like 11 theoretically gettable seats in play, an three of these are in California (longshot) and Connecticut (even bigger longshot) and Washington (longshot). I don't understand your math here. Some seem to think that there are 20 Democratic seats at risk and we can afford, as Paul Anka says, "to play pick and choose." Nope-- we've got to run the table. The whole table, and not lose as single one of our 3-4 threatened seats to boot.

76 No way I'm voting for Kirk.

77

Isn't the real problem here that the GOP hierarchy and intelligentsia [sic] want to run RINOs everywhere and not just in IL and MA, like Scozzafava?

78

Are you really willing to piss it away?

Sadly, man conservatives are. Because somehow it's easier to sleep at night with their "principles" firmly in tact.  I don't care about my principles in the voting booth, I care about our country and our Constitution. I wish we all had the luxury; we however do not. Especially now.

If I wanted to be both (a) so miserable that I'd vote for the "best" candidate, without a chance in hell that person could be elected, just to prove a point and (b) cared only about feel-good self and my feel-good standards, I'd be a freakin' progressive regressive.

79 When your opponent fumbles on his side of the field, you gotta punch it in.

Posted by: Jean at February 04, 2010 01:54 PM (PjevJ)

--I agree!

80 When you say his wife is a beard what does that mean, she likes cooters?

81 If, and it is still a big if, the Republicans get control of the Senate (and you need Mark Kirk to win Illinois for that happen) then the Republicans control the committees, including the power of subpoena.

Subpoenas are good.  And twerps like Snowe can't vote for unConstitutional shit bills if the Tom Coburns and Jim DeMints don't let their committees send to the floor.

I hate Dan "Consenting adults shouldn't be allowed to talk dirty on the Internet" Coats with the heat of a thousand suns, but I still want him to take out Bayh the way Quayle took out Bayh's daddy, just to get Jim Inhofe a chairmanship.

82 88,

Amen, darlin'.

83 A slim-RINO-majority Senate winging subpeonas at the heads of bad guys and smiting all deserving is also a fantasy scenario. They will not be "we." There won't be smite one.

Better them than Democrats, marginally, yes. But come on. It's the Senate. At best, it stops things from happening. "We" need a lot of different things to happen, not fewer same things. The Senate won't matter much unless its composition is really changed. That can't be done just by adding Rs to it.

It is better, short-term, if Kirk wins. It's not much better. Long-term, it could turn out worse, if his (and Brown's) example is mis-taken by the Party. And you know it will be.

The permanent Beltway GOP would rather lose in a way they can blame on "teabaggers" than win and be associated with them. Blue-state RINO wins are going to reinforce the Party's obsessive courting of "independents" and "moderates," who still don't exist, except in condemnations of Republicans for alienating them.

It will end badly. Again. Again again.

84 Look, if you want to push purity, do it in solidly Red States and wax some squishes like Girly-Name Graham.  In Blue and Bluish states, a little bit of RINO is the price of victory.

85 the guys at hillbuzz also say Obama was notorious for going to gay bathhouses and getting his dick sucked every weekend. They are big on the Gay Rumor Mill. I'm sorry - gays make shit up. There is something in the subculture about gossip, and seeming in the know, and all that. Hillbuzz keeps regurgitating the silliest shit (Obama going to gay bathhouses every week) on the strength of what gays say at gay bars. You know what they say? Everyone's gay. They "know" from a friend who himself is in the know.

86 The guys over at Hillbuzz have said repeatedly that the Democrats were hoping that Kirk would win, because apparently his wife is a beard.

The party that claims to respect and celebrate gays is going to use "OMG! He might be gay!" as a slur and campaign strategy? Why do gays put up with that?

87

91 Preach on, sista.

I can't stand Dan Coats. But Coats > Bayh on my checklist at the end of the day so it's an easy choice.

Math can be easy if you allow it to be.

88 As a current IL resident, I voted for Hughes Tuesday.

But you better believe that if I still live here in November, I will vote for Kirk as many times as they let me.

I do not agree with Kirk about every issue, but I do agree with what Ace said above. 

At least he wasn't threatening to slash his hooker GF's through (like the Dem's Lt Gov candiate), tied in with Tony Rezko (like the Dem's Senate candidate) or ran the state into a $5 billion hole (Governor Quinn).

89 I don't give a rat's behind what anyone else thinks, I live in Illinois, I have to vote in the election, and I'll be DAMNED if I'd EVER vote for Giannoulias.  I might hold my nose, but Kirk will get my vote.  And there WILL be pudding involved.

90
Here's a "fact:" My candidate actually exists in the real world whereas yours does not.

Please respond. This seems a large political disadvantage you start with, your candidate not existing and all.

Posted by: ace at February 04, 2010 02:09 PM (jlvw3)

I'm slow in this whole area of understanding, but if you refer to the lesser of evils dogma, this is a gross example oversimplifying. Do you agree with me that some evils can't be supported?

I don't even mean "pro-rape candidate vs pro-murder candidate" type of example, I mean a trivial example such as registering as a D in a Congressional disctrict which is always D, and voting for the lesser of evil D. Which most conservatives don't do, and I suppose you don't eather.

If you can agree that there are LIMITS on the lesser of evils dogma, than we have to set the limit somethere, don't we? Where should it be?

91

"Going home with a 5 is always better than going home alone. Vote for Kirk!"

That's usually my plan going in.  I don't have to waste a lot of money buying drinks, and I just consider it practice for the next time.

92

You know what they say? Everyone's gay.

Ah, you've been reading my studies. Of course, everyone's gay!

93 Posted by: Truman North at February 04, 2010 02:19 PM (e8YaH)

"When you're seeing double, a 5 is a 10...."

94

Isn't the real problem here that the GOP hierarchy and intelligentsia [sic] want to run RINOs everywhere and not just in IL and MA, like Scozzafava?

Yes.  I suspect that the Scozzafava debacle may have bitch-slapped a few Frummites out there though.  There's also the Tea Party thing, which can have the effect of rallying the base.

However, that's not really relevant with regards to Illinois and Kirk- here they got about the best they could do for the demographic he'd represent.

95

I don't even mean "pro-rape candidate vs pro-murder candidate" type of example, I mean a trivial example such as registering as a D in a Congressional disctrict which is always D, and voting for the lesser of evil D. Which most conservatives don't do, and I suppose you don't eather.

Actually, I know more than a few people who do just that, because electing a RINO Republican in their district, let alone a real one, is hopeless.

96 All this Kirk talk makes me want to come up with a Captain Kirk joke.

Posted by: George Orwell at February 04, 2010 02:02 PM (AZGON)

He tasks me. He tasks me and I shall have him! I'll chase him 'round the Green of Cabrini and 'round the Avenue Michigan and 'round Perdition's flames before I give him up!

97 What has to change, and I think will change now with the Internets, and social media, is making sure the scrutiny doesn't end on the day after election day (talking generally here; not just about, or even specifically about Kirk).  Of course, this is harder with six year Senate terms than in the House, but it can still be done. 

Lets make Ben Nelson the last RINO elected official: MAKE IT SO; MAKE THE RINO EXTINCT. Or at least the RINO who isn't too afraid to show his real...stripes?  Spots?  Something...

98

I don't even see how there's a debate on this - unless Kirk's another Scozzafava, why not support him against a Democrat ?  FFS, I supported John Fking McCain against Obama (and so did just about every other right-winger I know, GOP, Conservative, Liberatarian or otherwise).  I've grudgingly supported The Governator here in CA even after he started fondling Gaia's breasts and buttocks for more votes. 

Unless you can show me the man's going to go whole-hog Dem when he gets in (like the Scozz would have), getting anything positive out of the political hellhole that gave us Don Bambi is worth it. 

99 Posted by: ParisParamus at February 04, 2010 02:21 PM (+BIE5)

Ben Nelson's a Democrat....

100 73 Juicer:

Here's a "fact:" My candidate actually exists in the real world whereas yours does not.

Please respond. This seems a large political disadvantage you start with, your candidate not existing and all.

Posted by: ace at February 04, 2010 02:09 PM (jlvw3)

Just can't help dipping into that sweet sweet readership rage eh?

101 Whenever I run across someone that is ghey I look at them as cartoon characters in their thinking, I have no problem with them they are people too, just have fucked up thinking sometimes, it's a big world we live in.

102 >>> Do you agree with me that some evils can't be supported? Mark Kirk is an Evil which cannot be abided? Really? I understand if this is on the abortion issue and is pure principle, and you can't support a guy who's pro-choice. I do. But unless this is motivated by a Biblical command, as you say with abortion, I don't get it. Conservative supreme court justices get approved not JUST from conservative votes. Moderates pass them through, too, on the idea that a president can nominate whom he likes and elections have consequences. We have never had a majority of 51 CONSERVATIVES in the Senate and most likely never will (never meaning the foreseeable future of 10-20 years). So until that day comes, you are going to have to come to terms with the idea that you need moderates to pass your agenda.

103 #106, as I asked yesterday. how is a Senate race conducted in NY where both seats are up?  Do you officially declare for, say Schumer's seat, or do you just run, amd get Gillibrand's if you come in second?  I don't get this process...

104 Alito and Roberts got approved with moderate votes. Had it just been the conservatives in the Senate -- maybe there are 30 of those, tops -- they never would have been on the bench.

105

Actually, I know more than a few people who do just that, because electing a RINO Republican in their district, let alone a real one, is hopeless.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at February 04, 2010 02:20 PM (ujg0T)

True, it is happening, but MOST people don't do it - and conservative blogs don't publish "Vote for with Dx vs Dy!!!!111eleventy" posts. So there is a difference between this and supporting a RINO who runs in a lefty state or district. My question is whether it's also different from a DIABLO, and if so - how.

106 >>>how is a Senate race conducted in NY where both seats are up? Do you officially declare for, say Schumer's seat, or do you just run, amd get Gillibrand's if you come in second? I don't get this process... HAH! That's a good question.

107 114 #106, as I asked yesterday. how is a Senate race conducted in NY where both seats are up?  Do you officially declare for, say Schumer's seat, or do you just run, amd get Gillibrand's if you come in second?  I don't get this process...

They are separate races for separate seats. One is a special election for a partial term (Gillibrand - Hillary's term) and will have to run again in 2012.

108

If you can agree that there are LIMITS on the lesser of evils dogma, than we have to set the limit somethere, don't we? Where should it be?

We did that in NY-23, when the Party establishment tried to foist a craptastic candidate on us.

But Mr. Kirk won his primary fair and square.

Want someone better next time around? Try this.

109 Posted by: ParisParamus at February 04, 2010 02:23 PM (+BIE5)

They are separate seats, and filed for separately.  I think it would be better if, at least in the primaries, the top two vote getters would be the two candidates, but it doesn't work that way. 

Causes quite a bit of strategy-making.  Probably if there are more than one viable Republican, they'll all file for Gillibrand's seat.  So I don't know who will rise up to challenge Chucky.

(I think I've got it right -- I'm looking for a link to where I read it.)

110

If you can agree that there are LIMITS on the lesser of evils dogma, than we have to set the limit somethere, don't we? Where should it be?

When we're faced with a choice between one candidate that wants to nuke the entire state of Nebraska, and another that wants to perform ethnic cleansing on all left-handed people, we'll be sure to consult you for options.

111 I for one will welcome James Tiberius Kirk to the Senate as a Republican from Illinois

112
You go into the elections with the candidates you have, not the ones you wish you had.

113 Awesome post, Ace!  Glad I finally tore myself away from the puppeh cam to read it.  Being in California, I wish more people would understand what you're saying up there.  All this "purity" shit is going to be harmful if people don't knock it off.

114 So what we'll end up with is a majority in Congress that is populated by a minority of "moderates" or RHINOs

Are fiscal conservative moderates a real problem?

Obama, Pelosi, and Reid have turned fiscally liberal Illinois into a fiscally conservative state.  The Democrats in Illinois argue that Illinois has a low tax burden.  It's serious delusion, but it has worked to get them elected.

Right now the Senate needs more people with plans like Paul Ryan's.  We need proposals for an across the board tax cut accompanied by a reduction in spending and the creation of voucher models to induce the expansion of competitive markets.

115

The guys over at Hillbuzz have said repeatedly that the Democrats were hoping that Kirk would win, because apparently his wife is a beard.

Those guys put the 'queen' in 'drama queen'. Weren't there rumors that Bill Clinton was a beard for Hillary?  Also, I once had a couple of State's Attorney's solemnly tell me that Lisa Madigan, the Illinois Attorney General was a definite rug-muncher. I'm sure that would come as a shock to her husband and two children.

What I'm finding the most amusing about the Illinois primaries is that Todd Stroger is out of a job as Cook County board chairman come November. I have it on good authority that he's gay!

116 #123, thanks; I find that really bizarre on a practical, campaigning level--don't you?  It's like separate parallel universes or dimensions...Star Trek/Kirk-y...

117 Ace, At the end, you got real close to where I'm at. I desperately want the Republicans to win the House. That's the place where having a majority is the bigger deal, and winning there gives us committees with subpoena power. It also lets us offer budgets, and pass popular laws that the Dems will hate. Taking the House AND the Senate doesn't do us much EXTRA good until we also get the Presidency. And having the Democrats with the White House, and "control" of the Senate (50 - 50, 51 - 49, 52- 4 , but without the ability to ram any of their agenda through because the Republicans control the House, gives us two years of teh Democrats being ineffective, further demoralizing their base before the 2012 elections. Do I want to see Mark Kirk win, and take over Barak Obama's seat? Oh, hell yes. Having both Biden's and Obama's seats flip to the Republicans in 2010 would be glorious. But I think the Republicans are better off taking the House, and getting really close in the Senate, than in taking both.

118 125,

That's exactly right, again we can bend their ears after they get in to walk a line we demand they do or they're out!


Hey Peaches.

119
Mark Kirk is an Evil which cannot be abided?

Really?

I understand if this is on the abortion issue and is pure principle, and you can't support a guy who's pro-choice. I do.

But unless this is motivated by a Biblical command, as you say with abortion, I don't get it.

Conservative supreme court justices get approved not JUST from conservative votes. Moderates pass them through, too, on the idea that a president can nominate whom he likes and elections have consequences.

We have never had a majority of 51 CONSERVATIVES in the Senate and most likely never will (never meaning the foreseeable future of 10-20 years).

So until that day comes, you are going to have to come to terms with the idea that you need moderates to pass your agenda.

Posted by: ace at February 04, 2010 02:23 PM (jlvw3)

How about cap tax and trade? How is that not far left? I can understand stimulus supporters, Bush also did that and was not a DIABLO, but major spending for far left social issues? 'Tis an ominous  sign.

If your theory is that Kirk's a mere RINO like Brown, I have no real argument with you ideologically. This is the argument you should have presented.

However, the current post is just about how goodie will it feel to have an R on the throne. Not convincing (not that I'm the one you need to convince, since I'm just an argument troll and all that).

120 thank you for posting this ace!!! i hope this gets all conservatives on board for supporting Kirk. they supported brown, and hopefully they can support kirk 2! thanks again!!!

121 Greg, Well, we are down ten seats (joe has the tiebreaker; we need 51 to hold the senate) so even if you just want to get a bunch of seats so that we are in a position to win in 2012, we cant' afford to lose many here. In 2012, I have bad news: the economy will be expanding, if weakly, and the country WILL be more inclined to vote Democratic.

122

Posted by: Phinn at February 04, 2010 02:12 PM (VpZeO)

--I agree.  It should be noted that Scott Brown's campaign, I thought, was brilliant marketing.

123 I want to Rudi take on Chucky, just for joy of the battle.

124 Well I've bitched about Kirk plenty, and will continue (for the next 7 years, I have no doubt).  His voting record says nothing good about him, so I expect nothing good from him.  He may surprise us.  But as much as I don't like him, and the social liberals infiltrating the Republican ranks generally, I really can't make the case for voting against him.  If Hoffman had won the Dem primary, it would have been possible.

But we know Alexi is mobbed up.  And ace has a point that we really can take the Senate back if the races fall right.  Given things we expect to go wrong between now and November (Iran, Leon Panetta's Al Qaeda warning, still rising unemployment), I think Republicans will pick up some Dem seats that we are still not talking about at this point.  So we may not need Kirk in the end, but that's a better discussion to be having in October.

Besides, conservatives in Illinois look like were going to get a decent candidate for governor who can always move up the scale eventually.  So let's try to get along until the election.

ace@95-The gay thing won't matter even if true.  The rift between IL R voters and the state party has a lot to do with the way they ran from Jack Ryan over the slightest thing.  They won't do the same to Kirk because he's one of them.

125 Where was the defense of Kirk? I read nothing but nonsequiters and nothing to point that he would side with the Rs.

126 For Texas morons, I want you to know that one of the reasons a "real conservative" cannot get elected to a statewide office in Illinois is because many of these voters from Illinois have MOVED TO TEXAS.

The Democrats just called to say "you're welcome".

Look, I get Texas.  I love it.  I'd love to adopt the Texas approach to budgets and markets.  Illinois is at least 5-6 years away from even sniffing at Texas type budget proposals.  Illinois residents are just now feeling the burn of 9 years of Dem control of both chambers in the legislature and 7 years controlling the governorship.  The voters are hurting deep right now.  Neighboring states are doing much much better because they made tough decisions years ago while Illinois was trying to play nice with Rod Blagojevich's borrow and spend approach to governing.

127

Juicer has me convinced.  Since Ace was unable to convince me that Kirk is merely a RINO and not Satan (and being too lazy just to find out more about him on my own), I'm left with only one choice for Illinois Senator.

FRED THOMPSON FOR ILLINOIS SENATE.

If you don't support Fred for Illinois Senate, it is only because you're a devil-worshipping gay homosexual communist with a Che Guevera shrine in his bedroom and an active membership in NAMBLA.  Or maybe just a defeatist.  Either way, pretty much the same thing.

128 Hey Peaches.

Hey, Big Guy!

And, Jean, that would be a lot of fun to watch. 

129 I didn't vote for Brady.  I voted for Proft.  When I saw the early returns with Andy McKenna leading by 10 points I was spooked.  He almost bought the election.  ALMOST.

I wonder if ends up endorsing Republican candidates and urging his donors to contribute to them.  He does have that stolen Notre Dame alumni email list.

130 "The guys over at Hillbuzz have said repeatedly that the Democrats were hoping that Kirk would win, because apparently his wife is a beard."

OK, I'll bite.  What's a "beard"?

131 This sir or madam juicer is just the negative image of a Progressive, that's all. And that's fine with me. But it's just another Republican poking the poultry. I'm thinking that Independents are the only group consistently voting their wallets. The GOP is ultimately doomed. I hope to live long enough to see it.

132 Alexi is going to run on a populist socialist ticket.  He's going to talk down free trade.  He's going to talk up government job creation.  These two issues split Illinois voters.  Illinois voters have incredible doubt about the governments ability to create jobs.  They do however have questions about free trade as it relates to job loss in manufacturing.

The lefty pundit talking point in Illinois describes Kirk as "Mark Kirk(R-China).

I hope Giannoulias runs that ad.

133 A buddy of mine used to walk up to the prettiest woman in the bar and say, " Are you gonna let that ugly, fat girl over there leave with me? What does she have that you don't?"
Most of the time they laughed and at least listened to the sales pitch. Sometimes it even worked.

Zombie Reagan is busy infiltrating the Kremlin to destroy Putin. He can't run in Illinois this time. We need to nut up and get an R's ass in the seat.

We can work Kirk's mind with emails, letters, and calls once he has the job.

Right now we conservatives have a very clear force and message:
What we can give, we can also take away.

No politician can ignore our movement now. Not even dipshits like B-HO. Kirk will listen.

134 I remember all these "so and so had better not get to Washington and turn into a RINO" admonishments before the 2008's.  Look folks, one of the reasons this turn at the Big Table for the moonbats has become an instant fiasco is because of the new media, the rise of the Tea Party movement, and Sarah Palin.  More people are paying attention now, and execrable politicians like Specter and Schumer are being put on display for the world to see.

Newspapers are failing, and while the SEIU union is growing, so grows the moron horde.  Ya gotta have a little faith, ya gotta keep sharp.

Waitin' for some mythical good ol' boy who shore does have a purity mouth... well, that's exactly how you take yourself right out of the game.  Go for the 60% or 70% solution, and continue to hold their feet to the fire. That is working.

135

OK, I'll bite.  What's a "beard"?

A husband or wife that gives a gay partner the appearance of being, well, normal. I believe it's from the old fake beard used as a disguise routine. As an example, rumor was that Elsa Lanchester and Charles Laughton (actors from long ago for you kiddies) were both gay, and married each other just for mutual respectability. Although Elsa was pretty hot as Bride Of Frankenstein......

Sometimes I think those guys at Hillbuzz have huffed one popper too many.

136

Ace was unable to convince me that Kirk is merely a RINO and not Satan

Posted by: Hollowpoint at February 04, 2010 02:40 PM (plsiE)

Do you know what a dyslexic Satanist does?

Sells his soul to Santa.

137 Kirk NRA Rating=F- 

I will NOT EVER vote for Kirk.

138 I've had this conversation-argument so many times for so long; the 'Purist' ( we wanna lose for the Right Reasons ) mantra-meme was Old the first time I heard it:  Old and tired and self-defeating--and a gift to every Douchebag Democrat and louse-ridden liberal, everywhere.

The next nine months are a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reverse a sad series of mistakes over the past five years of more by a Republican admin and Congress which reverted to pre-Regan practices and a callous indifference to the voters who put them in power.  They lost their power because they never found their principles--and spent our money like Drunken Democrats.

The Republican Party--its potential voters and candidates--are like Wellington watching the French deploy their troops in soggy ground early that morning at Waterloo.  The Enemy was, amazingly, going to attack piecemeal on sodden ground with stupid tactics ( hastily-arranged frontal attacks poorly co-ordinated with disorganized cavalry ).

The Duke couldn't believe his eyes--and luck.  Napolean was apparently distracted by Intense Ass Inflamation Hems--but it doesn't matter what makes your opponent stupid & crazy

Wellington saw a chance to establish British dominance for a generation--and made the most of it.  The Republicans need to take this opportunity to gain a mandate and the resultant power--or watch the Bozos take over the Bus

139 Juicer at February 04, 2010 02:05 PM (FQVa9)

"Juicer"?  Possibly a concern-troll "Ball Juicer" from J Cole's cesspool of circle-jerkery?  Look, I'm not sayin'...I'm just sayin'.

140 Gays do indeed like to speculate on other folks' sexuality. It's like a little hobby. My wife's hairdresser friend used to kid me about John Wayne all the time. He says that The Duke and Rock Hudson had an affair during the filming of The Undefeated.

We don't speak anymore.

If I had a $ for every time some gay person told me that driving my 4x4, smoking cigars, and shooting guns was a sign of being gay...

I could afford to pay the dues at my bathhouse and get my nails done.

141 Jim Pethokoukis just predicted that Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan will be the Democratic candidate for US Senate in Illinois.

He must have received a juicy email about Broadway Bank about to fail.

142 Hum - guess who was re-indicted today, in Illinois, for racketeering, attempted extortion, bribery, conspiracy to commit bribery and conspiracy to commit extortion? The only reason Christopher Kelly wasn't re-indicted was because he can't get any deader. Illinois current governor by accident, Pat Quinn, is already calling for his running mate at the top of the ticket to drop out of the race because of domestic hooker violence. Juicy. How many people infesting D.C. left lasting impressions on tape? Retarded, indeed.

143

Kirk said his Cap vote was a reflection of his Congressional district which would have benefited from it.  If he wins a Senate seat he will then be representing the entire state and the state as a whole does not benefit from Cap 'n Steal so he would vote against it.  Seems like he does and says he'll do what is best for his constituents.  Some would say flip flop, others would say apples and oranges.  I am happy to go with the apples and oranges.

Compared to the dems he is much closer to the Tea Party ideal ...  winner, winner, chicken dinner ...   its not hard to understand ...

 

144

However, the current post is just about how goodie will it feel to have an R on the throne. Not convincing (not that I'm the one you need to convince, since I'm just an argument troll and all that).

Posted by: Juicer at February 04, 2010 02:33 PM (FQVa9)

Maybe you should read the post again.  It doesn't say what you seem to think it's saying.

145 Ace - I am going to bet that those who complain that Mr. Kirk is not conservative enough (although he may be as conservative as you are going to get right now from Illinois) are also those that complain about the Republican party, but don't actually get involved in the party and try to change it.

146

O/T Obama pronounces Corpsmen as Corpse-men TWICE at the national prayer breakfast.

Presidential speechs to be added to teleprompter now in phonetical vernacular. That must have been some Columbia/Harvard degree.

Posted by: dagny at February 04, 2010 01:39 PM (l9p7n)

That kinda pisses me off, since my Son is now an Hospital Corpsman in the Navy (sorta following me - I'm a Fire Controlman/ex-Data Systems Technician), but not surprising. He's simply not at all familiar with the military, even in passing (until now, when he's my boss). He's never associated himself with any military (or former military) in the circles he's traveled, or has shown any interest familiarizing himself in their point of view. He's a "typical urban academic", as Moe Lane observed, to his irony consternation. They think in caricatures of the military  - John Kerry's "Stuk in Irak", for example.

147

I have to say that I agree with the observation that the Republicans have to get the best candidate FOR THE AREA - a more moderate R is going to win in some places, in others a very conservative one will win.  It sounds like Kirk is the best that we can hope for in Illinois, given the demographics there.

148 This argument boils down to two things.

If Kirk wins then Republicans increase their numbers.

vs.

If Kirk wins then Conservatives get nothing.

Why should I as a Conservative care one bit whether Kirk wins or loses to his Democratic opponent. Neither will do squat to advance my agenda.

What some Republicans (cough..Ace..cough) should try to understand is that some of us support the Republicans in what sometimes seems a futile hope that they will at least try to push a Conservative agenda of lower taxes, smaller government, and maybe some fiscal responsibility.

Some of us Conservatives don't care about the R's vs D's numbers game because it has no point to us. The only numbers game that should really matter to a Conservative is the L's vs C's. That's the only game that has a payout worth playing for.

149

75 The guys over at Hillbuzz have said repeatedly that the Democrats were hoping that Kirk would win, because apparently his wife is a beard.  I don't know if it is true or not, but it sounds like it is well-known in those circles, and it is something that the Dems plan on using at the last minute to torpedo his chances of winning.

Worthless, bizarro candidate Andy Martin got a lot of money from somebody to run ads in conservative media (including on WLS-am, the station that runs Rush Limbaugh) accusing Kirk of being gay.  Kirk is married, and currently getting divorced.  Nobody else has ever made those accusations against Kirk, and I would know, I live in his district.  Before Kirk was elected to IL-10, he was chief of staff for the former congressman, John Porter.  Kirk grew up around here, went to high school here, his family still lives here. 

Funny thing is, if the rumors were true it wouldn't hurt him at all, do you have any idea how big the geh community is here in Illinois?  He would certainly be money-bombed with cash from the boys. 

Google Andy Martin for more info, he has run for office all over the country, he's been a clown (okay, that's a plus for elected office in Illinois), and has some pretty weird views.  He's a wacko from the fringe, and some very wealthy co-wacko gave him a lot of money for this senate run.  Maybe a wealthy democrat, who knows?  It would be so like Soros to try and destroy a political opponent.

150

163 Kirk said his Cap vote was a reflection of his Congressional district which would have benefited from it. 

Excelon is an energy company located in IL-10, and they were in line to get lots of those carbon credits to trade.  Obviously Dan Seals (D) would have done whatever his democrat overlords told him to do, so he also would have voted for cap & trade.  I'm sure the trading exchanges on LaSalle St in Chicago also favored the trading of carbon for the $$ involved.  It's easy to be a purist when you don't have big money lined up against you, ready to buy your seat and give it to your opponent. 

As for ethanol, it is huge in Illinois.  Farm country is slowing dying in this state, and ethanol has given it a lifeline.  You can't run statewide and win if you oppose ethanol.

151

Exelon is a major campaign contributor for Kirk, as is DRW, which is I believe a carbon trading company -- and some other really interesting contributors.

 

Ethanol is big...it's a big freaking hoax and it's done more to fuck with IL farmers in the past couple years than has been reported on.  The stupid, greedy ones are still licking their chops for it, but its popularity is beginning to wane -- farmers haven't been helped by ethanol initiatives, just like consumers aren't getting cheaper gas at the pumps by it.  Besides, it's a flawed program from many levels, and only an idiot would think otherwise (this includes some of those farmers, who contrary to some people's opinions, aren't that idiotic).

152 health insurance quotes,
life insurance quotes,
9418482552