The Illinois primaries are over and the winners are Mark Kirk and Alexi Ginnoulias. Both are bad choices. Mark Kirk was part of the Cap and Tax 8 and has a very long history of RINO behavior. Alexi Ginnoulias is your typical sleazy Chicago politician whose family bank is in the hole for millions and made loans to the likes of Tony Resko.
So what to do? If I were voting in Illinois, I would let Ginnoulias win. I know, I know, how could I do such a think? Simple, it is a matter of quality vs. quantity. For too long, we have been playing the numbers game. Get as many Republicans in as possible for the sake of seeing Democrats loose and the results have always been the same ... we get unreliable votes when we need them the most.
Mark Kirk is a RINO in bold caps. His record speaks for itself. What is to be gained by sending yet another RINO to the senate? Sure, we get to give Obama another black eye like in Massachusetts, but what does it cost us? Six years of unreliable votes, thats what. Will Kirk hold true to fiscal conservatism and vote to make the hard choices needed to bring our insane deficit under control, or will Kirk wander off the reservation when the first sob story about “do it for the children” comes along? The truth is we have no idea what we are getting into and that is the problem with RINOs.
With Giannoulias, we know we know exactly what we are getting; a friend of Obama and another corrupt lefty who will solidly vote his party line. But here is the thing; the Democrats are going to lose seats in the Senate in 2010 no matter what. One more crook won’t make a difference. Republicans are looking like they will win in many states that have far better candidates than Kirk, candidates who will solidly vote for fiscal sanity.
Scott Brown was Americas Panic Button. We elected him because he promised to stop the insanity of ObamaCare. We may yet rue the day we elected him for other reasons, but for now he was our saving grace. Mark Kirk on the other hand is no Panic Button, we will not be in desperate need of one more vote and tweaking Obama’s nose one more time isn’t worth six years of the unknown.
Via: Memeorandum
Via: Chicago Tribune
Via: Michelle Malkin
Posts
13 comments:
Very true... You just can't trust a RINO. No values, goes what ever way the wind blow or the money goes. M
Mark Kirk, like John McCain in AZ, has suddenly become the poster child for conservatism now that it's an election year. He's anything but.
There may yet be another choice, and it would be up to Illinos. This time, there would be more time available than what Hoffman had in NY-23. If the tea party is serious, they should find another way to take a stand-winning stand or not and get their voices heard in Illinos. Really, what have they got to lose?
Amen brother! I couldn't agree more. I'd rather have a dem over a RINO any day. Look how the RINO betrayed us in the NY 23rd congressional race.
A RINO can only offer false hope and let us down everytime we need support and that last crucial vote on an important issue, i.e. Cap & Trade, Healthcare, 2nd Amendment, etc
Right! I agree.
The devil that you know is better than the devil that you don't know. At least with a committed Democrat you know what you are getting. With a RINO, you can expect heartbreak, but you don't know when it's coming, and you can't assess the amount of damage that RINO will do.
I am of the opinion (stated many times around the 'net) that if we are going to have a big government, big taxs, low freedom person in office, make him wear a "(D- )" after his name.
I think the third party try is a good idea as long as we are sure that the RINO comes in third.
M. Conservative Operative:
That is the chief problem with RINOs, you have no idea what you will end up with.
Writer X:
I like to call it the 11th hour conversion to conservatism. Just in time for elections.
Citizen121701:
The question is, how strong is the Tea Party in Illinois? If they are strong they can rally behind a real conservative NOW. Otherwise you are correct, that candidate will suffer Hoffman's fate in timing.
N Burke:
Welcome to ABC. We have seen the pattern too many times. At some point we have to put an end to the madness and just accept a loss over another RINO.
Quite Rightly:
That is exactly how I felt about voting for McCain [before he added Palin]. Glenn Beck is fond of saying that McCain would have been worse because he would have taken baby steps to socialism. I disagree, McCain is a gadfly, who the heck knows what you would have gotten in the end.
Larry Sheldon:
I think we may end up with two parties, one new and one old. The Democrat party has damaged themselves beyond belief and their desire to mock the up and coming Tea Party is the height of foolishness.
In the end, the tea party may come to life a slay the Democrats, leaving us with the GOP [Dem Lite] and Tea [true conservatives].
I won't disagree with that, but I wonder if it will work like it did some years ago, when we had "conservative Democrats" and "some Republicans" agreeing with each other against "The Democrats" and the "The liberal Republicans".
What we (conservatives) need to work on is getting rid of the "social conservative" label.
Note the keyword "label" in that sentence. If I had meant "position" or "belief" I would have said that.
Conservatives are for small, inexpensive, non-intrusive government.
That is all we need to know--we are losing over the litmus test stuff.
We need to stop letting the progressives define and label us.
Post a Comment