Under an August article, commenter “Priest” advanced the best reason for supporting U.S. Senator Mark Kirk in the November election.
You can read it and react to it below:
Mark Kirk is problematic as a candidate.
He’s not fully recovered from his stroke so unelected staffers have taken more responsibility for what should be the decisions of a Senator.
This is not new as a function of normal and customary practice for Senators but it is an issue for those who believe in a pure interpretation of a Representative government.
Kirk also walks a middle line politically which irks the conservative Republicans.
To understand political reality is to understand pragmatic politics.
Reagan’s pragmatic statement sums this up when he stated his 80% friend is not his 20% enemy.
Duckworth is openly the proven enemy of Americanism.
Duckworth is part of a party which has openly now come out against American values entirely.
Duckworth believes Kirk is weak enough to attack and win.
What The politically uninitiated do not understand is Kirk cannot win his district only appealing to the Trump wing of the Republican Party.
He is a mush out of political pragmatism.
What we do understand in Illinois is how important it is for Republican leadership to control both the House and the Senate.
With leadership comes agenda control.
With agenda control for Republicans comes a four square fight against the anti American forces the Democrats are electing.
Whatever your thoughts on policy Kirk espouses the bottom line is owning the seat.
If you wanted a more conservative candidate you should have given time and treasure to a Primary opponent.
Now is the time to get real about the existential crisis our nation faces under Democrat leadership, grow up politically and fight the battle you can win… Kirk retaining the seat for Republican leadership.
I almost made this an article of its own, but you beat me to the punch.
I’m not a fan of Kirk, but it’s hard to logically refute Priest’s claim.
Chad Koppie, the conservative, write-in U.S. Senate candidate, hopes that the liberal vote will split, among Kirk, Duckworth, and Summers (of the Green Party), helping Chad win with 20%.
Chad is the only candidate, in his race, who pro-life and anti-illegal alien.
Chad is also pro-gun rights, pro-fairtax, and pro-spending cuts.
Chad was endorsed by Mike Psak (a 2008 U.S. Senate candidate), Rick Biesada (director of the Chicago Minuteman Project), and Jennifer Brower, the first Illinois chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus.
Please read Chad’s site, http://www.chadkoppie.com.
Kirk himself is but one more reason why people are leaving Illinois.
He is Democrat lite, a good buddy of deplorable Durbin.
The people of Illinois had an opportunity to primary Kirk out but they didn’t.
It is truly amazing how many low-info fools we have in this state.
Once more the people of Illinois will have to hold their collective noses and
vote for Kirk, a disgusting errand that must be done.
When the candidates are this onerous I refuse to vote for any.
Too bad the no choice never wins.
I keep hoping that they will never take office if no one votes for them, but someone always does.
**Chad Koppie, the conservative, write-in U.S. Senate candidate, hopes that the liberal vote will split, among Kirk, Duckworth, and Summers (of the Green Party), helping Chad win with 20%.**
There are a lot of really “funny” things written on this blog… But this might be the funniest.
He won’t get 2%.
He definitely won’t get 20%.
As a Republican, I don’t vote for Democrats.
Therefore, I will not be voting for Mark Kirk.
So, these are comments made by a writer who identified him or herself as “Priest.”
Can I ask what exactly he or she means by these comments:
As they seem to be the crux of the argument, some explanation is warranted.
Can I wonder if “Priest” might be the Rev. Barrettsmith who recently stated his belief that all Democrats are unChristian?
Maybe it’s someone else, but they seem to share a narrow-minded, I-know-it-all, self-righteous attitude toward those they disagree with.
With polls projecting such a close race for Senate majority, some even predicting a possible 50-50 split, it is very disappointing to see Republicans in Illinois not supporting Senator Kirk.
Do you guys understand that with the majority this could place a huge check on a potential Clinton presidency particularly when it comes to nominations??
We had our opportunity to nominate someone else. That was the Primary election.
Mark Kirk won his nomination with 70% support compared to James Marter’s 29%.
That’s hardly a close election.
Republicans made their choice.
If people vote for Kirk as the lesser of two evils they will get more of the same.
The Illinois Republican Party has shown contempt for good government by putting up Kirk when the man is ill and unable to perform basic functions of the office.
I don’t have a dog in this race but Kirk is a dead “duck.”
WE the Republicans failed as a team by not backing James Marter for this office..
There is no way in this world would I ever vote for Kirk and I am not alone …
Rino Kirk is a sleeze bag extraordinaire….
I am afraid that We republicans just lost another office to the Democrats….
Giving more control to the Madigan Machine…..
this is one time I hope I am wrong
You gave me a good laugh.
You still think that Congress has anything to do with the dictatorship we are under?
LOL Huge checks!
What are you smoking?
Of course, by not holding one’s nose and voting for Kirk, you may be giving control of the U.S. Senate to the Democrats.
I don’t think that not voting for Kirk will give control of the Senate to the democrats.
No way will I ever vote for Kirk.
Cindy – excuse me?!
We do not have a Supreme Court justice yet because of Congress.
I am making the same point Cal is.
And voting for Kirk does not give more power to the Madigan machine.
How do you possibly figure that it does?
And voter – I’m glad that you ‘think’ that.
But how do you justify that given the current polls and projections regarding Senate majority?