The American Spectator

Die Rechte Ecke| 2.3.10 @ 12:11AM

Somedays - I hate living in this state. Pat didn't have the cash or the name recognition. Too bad.
Kirk's going to be a RINO - even more than he is now :(

Jane309| 2.3.10 @ 1:05AM

Kirk is going to be a problem. I really expected a better showing for Hughes, he got a lot of talk and everyone I know voted for him.

Kirk . . . ugh, I really didn't want to face this option.

But we might get a little bit of good news yet today, downstater Bill Brady is holding onto the lead by a hair, a very slim hair, but I'd LOVE to see that happen. He was at 6% when the returns started coming in from Chicago . . . but as the burbs and downstate started coming in, he really surged. Andy A., got my vote, but Brady would have been my second choice.

terry| 2.3.10 @ 11:48AM

i'm an out of state tea partier. yet i was born in frank cuneo hospital. i donated to hughes and had really hoped he had a great showing. like mentioned, we dont need RINO'S we can still put up a good fight where we can, and even a "RINO" is almost better than a" D " any time of the day. TEA PARTY ON

RightKlik| 2.3.10 @ 2:00AM

Some say Kirk is moderate, but that's not accurate. Kirk is a liberal Republican.

Profile of a closet Democrat:

• Voted for Nancy Pelosi's radical Cap & Tax Bill
• Voted against new oil drilling in ANWR for energy independence
Has earned an "F" from the NRA for being "a true enemy of gun owners’ rights...and a consistent anti-gun candidate who always opposes gun owners’ rights."
• Voted against the final surge in Iraq.
• As a supporter of partial birth abortion, he gets a 100% rating from NARAL.

I'm not convinced that electing a liberal Republican like Mark Kirk in November would be in the long-term best interests of Illinois, the Republican Party, or the country. Why should the GOP give any legitimacy to bad ideas and bad policies by promoting liberals?

Siegfried X| 2.3.10 @ 2:03AM

Kirk actually won the race in July. Back then he threatened to pull out of the race unless he had a guarantee that no professional politicians would run against him. There were days of "negotiations" between Kirk and party insiders, as was widely reported in the media.

So Kirk ended up with just what he wanted, a bunch of amateur, mostly self-funded opponents and an easy victory in a rigged election.

RightKlik| 2.3.10 @ 2:06AM

P.S. Mark Kirk is sadly mistaken if he thinks he can replicate the Scott Brown phenomenon. The stakes for Mark Kirk won't be as high. Kirk won't be the 41st vote. Kirk won't attract a lot of tea party support. Conservatives will be much more inclined to invest resources in candidates like Marco Rubio, Pat Toomey and Chuck DeVore. All eyes won't be on Illinois.

Siegfried X| 2.3.10 @ 2:23AM

"GOP bosses backed Kirk's bid early - perhaps scaring off challengers who could match him in name recognition and cash "

-- The Daily Herald

zeke| 2.3.10 @ 2:49AM

Okay, Illinois conservatives, buck up yourselves for once! Oh, boo hoo, Mark Kirk is not the perfect candidate. No, he's not. But the other guy is far, far worse. Get Kirk in and hold him accountable and if he fumbles, we'll kick his *** out. You sit on the sidelines and wring your hands, oh woe is me and my state, you will get far worse than Mark Kirk. Continuing to let the dims slide in this state because we are so wrapped up in our lack of a SAVIOR that we don't vote the lesser of two evils is STUPID. Live to fight again another day people!

Will Stephens | 2.13.10 @ 4:25PM

here is a group you might want to join.

martin j smith| 2.3.10 @ 7:27AM

Zeke: You are right on !!!!!. There is need to take steps even baby steps towards creating a more responsible government. Indeed if MaCaine had won--and I believe if he had a competent campaign he could or might have--the same problem would have occurred. So, vote for Kirk the jerk, and indeed hold him accountable and treatment as any other Democrat if he acts like one.

jeff| 2.3.10 @ 9:40AM

I think better to let Kirk lose here. Voters need to see a clear difference between republicans and democrats. Not a democrat lite like kirk. He, McCain, Grahamnesty and Bush have done enormous damage to the right. Let this one go and stay home conservative. This race is not for you.

Will Stephens | 2.13.10 @ 4:26PM

www.republicansforalexi.com

Jeff| 2.3.10 @ 9:42AM

Mark Levin - "Mark Kirk is Olympia Snowe in pants"

Indiana Alex| 2.3.10 @ 9:53AM

Kirk may be the difference between control of the Senate, and not.

It's unfortunate, but this is the best you are going to get out of an Illlinois Republican. When was the last time a conservative won a statewide race who was not running against Carol Mosley Braun?

Kirk is a politician and would toe the party line if there were goodies at stake.

Martin j smith| 2.3.10 @ 10:34AM

The Jeff attitude is what got us Obama to some extent. Sorr, but as problematic a candidate MaC would be, the nation would be better off with him compared to Obama without a shadow of aq doubt. No question MaC would pose problems But at least the PEOPLE would have a "seat at the table" --THERE IS NONE AT ALL WITH OBAMA!!!!. That is a Big Difference. Eelections have consequences. And, be wary of trolls who just might be lurking !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Siegfried X| 2.3.10 @ 11:03AM

Nominating McCain as a Republican is what got us Obama. 15 years of "holding our noses" and voting for liberal Republicans gave us Obama.

This country will be far, far better off in the long term with McCain losing, because the Republican Party is reviving and will beat the Democrats.

If McCain had won there would have been no tea parties and Specter would still be a Republican. The conservative voters would still be asleep and the liberal Republicans would be passing legislation with Democrats, like they so often did before Obama.

President McCain probably would have passed amnesty and cap & trade by now. After all, McCain ran in favor of cap & trade same as Obama.

martin j smith| 2.3.10 @ 11:42AM

Here is the deal. We got Obama. Now, had MaC run a competent campaign, he might have won or at least made so close that there would have been a Florida 2000 like siutation. As it was he ran a poor campaign which sometimes made me feel he did not really want to win.

BUT!!!!!
Thank gd that many millions of people voted for MaC even is a losing battle because it woul;d have been even worse had Obama had a true " Mandate" by a margin of or more. That would have been an even greater disaster. Now then, the import6ant thing is to think tactically and not just with your you know what. Tactically in my oppinion getting a MaC type is not at all preferable. But, Far better than Obama. If you do not think so.. that is your right. But with an Obama, your rights will be taken away and mine as well. So think hard if you are sincere in wanting a Free Country.

martin j smith| 2.3.10 @ 11:56AM

it ocurred to be to add this: If Obama and his merry band of Marxists were the ordinary breed of Democrats then I might agree with those who are opposed to voting even for a moderate. Buthey are NOT. They are dangerous,devious and with the MSM behind them or should I say in front of them... very troublesome ,and dangerous to our nation.. thus, it is imperative first to defeat them even with non ideal candidates then work towards the best you can get. That is tactical thinking.

Cpm| 2.3.10 @ 12:25PM

I have to agree with zeke, just because Kirk isn't a model conservative, he represented a district that voted overwhelmingly democrat in the last few presidential elections, so my hope and expectation will be that as a senator with a broader ideological constituency he will move to the right. Like Mitt Romney in Massachusetts, you sometimes have to do things you don't particularly want to do just to survive in a liberal environment. Representing the entire state may give him the freedom to act on his more conservative impulses.