In what can be explained only as the Tweets of a desperate re-election campaign, Republican U.S. Senator Mark Kirk’s last four posted comments insult and demean three key sectors of Illinois’ Republican voting bloc: those who are pro-life, pro-natural family and pro-2nd Amendment.
Nothing to worry about. It’s gone and it’s never coming back….
If I were going to vote for him, I’d have no confidence that he wouldn’t switch to Dem if it would give them control of the Senate, so the argument for electing him to keep the Senate safely out of Schumer’s hands disappears pretty quickly.
No. He’s going to lose in November, even if they are all with him. He needs to be thinking about what he’s going to do to earn a living next year, and trying to please the RWNJs will only compound his challenge of landing sweet corporate and civic gigs.
What so the right won’t vote for him? I don’t think the right is getting that ideologically pure. He’s probably going to get clobbered anyway with Trump at the top of the ticket. I think he’s pursuing the only way he thinks he can get votes.
He seems to have made a choice to lose some conservative votes in order to appeal as a centrist or ‘Rockefeller Republican’. Given his history, I expect some puzzling wavering between right wing and moderate positions before the election is over.
Voted yes. Liberals aren’t going to vote for the guy, and promoting this type of stuff will mean conservatives aren’t going to vote for him either. A former senator that lost his re-election race 53-47 can angle for another run. A former senator who lost 68-32 probably can’t. Although who knows, Bruce might be willing to prop him up in a future campaign regardless of outcome.
Yes. Extremist demand adherence no matter the practical politics.
- Put the Fun in unfunded - Tuesday, Jun 28, 16 @ 3:31 pm:
Voted yes - in a wave non-Presidential year he barely won so he needs a united and energized base, which he will not have. In 10th CD he got support from conservatives who wanted to hold the seat, but he has moved farther left since then other than on Israel. However, it does not matter; Duckworth may not be the most dynamic candidate but is much stronger than Alexi, so Kirk is done.
As Kirk knows, there is a significant segment of Republicans who would vote for a three-legged giraffe before they’d ever vote for a Democrat.
Those voters get it. They know Kirk is really a right wing conservative who is against gay marriage, for second amendment rights, trickle down economics, and all of the other positions of right-wing lore.
Well, maybe those conservatives aren’t sure about Kirk’s positions after all, but they sure enough know that Tammy Duckworth will win the “liberal” litmus test against Kirk.
Hence, Kirk may as well be a three-legged giraffe.
Voted no. Even the most extreme right-wingers knows how to count to 9. They want the Supreme Court 5-4 their favor. They will fall in line no matter who is at the top of the Republican ticket and not vote Democratic for a Senate candidate
His seat might be the one that determines the Majority. It’s always too close to call in the Senate. If you want Sessions, Hatch, Cornyn, etc. in the Majority…in Illinois, the Conservatives plug their nose and vote for Kirk. And then complain about it for his full term.
I voted YES. But it does look like political suicide in an election filed name-calling and even hate. If he really means this, and will stick to it, I can respect him for taking positions unpopular with the right wing of his base.
I voted no. If he tries to appease the ultra-right wing of the party he’ll alienate independents, which he’ll need to win the election. You aren’t going to please absolutists so why try. Those absolutists have demonstrated time and again that they would rather lose an election to uphold their principles 100%.
I voted Yes. Not a primary challenge from the right, but simply alienating potential voters. But this isn’t really new, Kirk has always been a North Shore liberal Republican and this isn’t really a change. Hard to see what he thinks it accomplishes for him, though. His whole campaign seems pointless, as in “without a point.”
No. He should worry that Illinois voters will catch on to his grift, as Guy so helpfully explained.
–If you want Sessions, Hatch, Cornyn, etc. in the Majority…in Illinois, the Conservatives plug their nose and vote for Kirk.–
Because who wouldn’t want Jefferson Beaurgard Sessions III, the man who called the NAACP “un-American communists” who “shoved civil rights down the nations throat” in the majority of the United States Senate?
Sen. Dirksen beat racist clowns like Sessions like a rented mule in passing civil rights legislation.
That’s what Illinois Republicans used to be all about.
Emily Booth, how as a Dem can you even think of it? He’s unprincipled and said horrible racist and misogynistic things. He had to be GOADED into withdrawing his support for Trump, for crying out loud. Sheesh.
- PENSIONS ARE OFF LIMITS - Tuesday, Jun 28, 16 @ 6:14 pm:
No. Democrats don’t want him either. Except for 5:40.
- Expletivedeleted - Tuesday, Jun 28, 16 @ 6:42 pm:
I voted no. I just don’t see any way Kirk wins, period. Left flank, right flank, this guy is toast. Nobody on the mid-to-far right trusts him and nobody left of center is going to be swayed when there’s a Democrat with name recognition. Pandering to the other side of the spectrum may be his last, best option but that doesn’t make it a good one.
- South Illinoisian - Tuesday, Jun 28, 16 @ 7:10 pm:
Yes. If Sen. Kirk is going to talk like a Democrat and go to Congress and vote for a Democrat, why not just put a real Democrat in office.
- South Illinoisian - Tuesday, Jun 28, 16 @ 7:12 pm:
That was supposed to be “go to Congress and vote like a Democrat”.
Agreed that it doesn’t matter because he will lose either way. I really don’t care much about a general election between two Democrats and will be more than happy to see him leave office despite the awful alternative. Hopefully Rs run a legitimate candidate in the future who can articulate positions beyond Democrat Lite.