For everyone that is voting for Kirk!

[Kenny]

Straight out of the ISRA alert!!!

 

 

URGENT ALERT: ANTI-GUN CONGRESSMAN TO HOLD HEARINGS ADVOCATING FEDERAL CLAMP DOWN ON GUN SHOWS

Rabidly anti-gun Congressman Mike Quigley (IL-5) will be holding a public hearing on a bill he has co-sponsored that would put gun shows under the supervision of the federal government. The bill, HR 2324, would subject gun show hosts to a slew of pointless, time consuming regulations in addition to heaping all sorts of red tape and record keeping requirements on gun show hosts and participants. The ultimate goal of Quigleys bill is to make hosting a gun show too much of a hassle to endure. As a result, this bill would quickly make gun shows disappear all together.

 

It should be noted that Congressman Mark Kirk (IL-10) is another co-sponsor of this slap to the face of the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Bill Matio]

http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=22819

[GarandFan]

Yeah, I know.

 

Both Kirk and Giannoulias will squash gun rights with equal zeal.

[pyre400]

what will the strategists do now?

 

While holding your noses this Nov, be sure to hold your a$$es too.

[Sigma]

While Kirk may screw us on this atleast his financial decisions dont scare me as much as alexi does. I dont understand why alexi isnt in jail.

His bank was closed down by the feds. THat was his money. How is that going to work when he has access to zillions of our dollars.

[Johnnybgood]

So if we don't vote for Kirk, and don't vote for the other guy, who do those who don't like Kirk suggest we vote for? Not voting is what got us the Obamanation. Yes I too get tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. Let us get Kirk in office then hold an GOFOK (Gun Owners Focused on Kirk) day at the capitol. Maybe when thousands of his constituents storm his office he will decide to vote accordingly.

[moparcardave]

Need to start a mass writein campaign. Kirk turns my stomach at least with Alexi you know what he will do.

[BigJim]

So? There are much more important things that have to be considered then whether there will be gun shows or not. Not having gun shows will not hurt me anywhere near as much as the economic damage two more years of Dems running the Senate will do. Having another seat with a "R" next to it helps take control of the legislative agenda out of Dem's control.

[papa]

No matter what , I will pull the handle for Kirk. I don't like his policy but it is one more R to count . I agree with the comment about getting him in and then hammering him about what we expect out of him .

 

I have voted for several Dems. through the years but after what I have seen out of them the last couple years it will be a while before another gets my vote. Then it will probably only be a local election .

[Beezil]

i think kirk is a worm.

 

but i'm voting for the "R" as well.

[Buzzard]

No matter what , I will pull the handle for Kirk. I don't like his policy but it is one more R to count . I agree with the comment about getting him in and then hammering him about what we expect out of him .

 

i think kirk is a worm.

 

but i'm voting for the "R" as well.

 

And so am I. This election is FAR too important to be "making a statement with your vote" that RINOs pay no attention to anyway.

 

Better to elect Kirk, and in doing so, get rid of the Democrat majority and Harry Reid. That will throw a wrench into Obama's socialist agenda.

 

We THEN take Mark Kirk to task and tell him to straighten his act out NOW!!

 

....or join Harry Reid in the unemployment line with no jobs to be had!!

[pyre400]

So how does the 2nd election work. Can we sh!tcan Kirk for someone else? Maybe take advantage of the special election?

[Xwing]

Voting against Kirk helps Obama. I can't stand Kirk either, but I will never put in a vote that would in any way indirectly help Obama. He is the worst president this nation has ever seen, and I will not help him keep another Democrat in the Senate to rubber-stamp his horrible anti-American, money-stealing ideas.

 

Kirk is anti-gun, and we know this. So is Giannoulias. But at least with Kirk, we have a shot at possibly pushing him into being a "neutral" in the fight against guns. If you think about it, all the screaming anti's are Democrats.

At least, looking through our sheet of Illinois politicians currently in power in Springfield, there is only one Republican who is marked as totally anti. Of course, there are several who aren't particularly on our side either. But the most anti-gun folks are liberal democrats.

 

I will continue to vote for the lesser of two evils, while acknowledging that he is far from good.

 

 

[Bud]

No matter what , I will pull the handle for Kirk. I don't like his policy but it is one more R to count . I agree with the comment about getting him in and then hammering him about what we expect out of him .

 

I have voted for several Dems. through the years but after what I have seen out of them the last couple years it will be a while before another gets my vote. Then it will probably only be a local election .

 

 

All that for me too

 

Although, Beezil had a good point:

 

"i think kirk is a worm.

 

but i'm voting for the "R" as well."

[w00dc4ip]

My decision was made prior to the primary. At that time, I posted my opinion here and elsewhere, sent a letter to the IL GOP offices in Springfield and Chicago, and sent several emails to the same offices, never receiving any response other than being put on their junk mail and SPAM lists. The letters all said I will not cast a vote for Kirk and explained why. The fact that the race is pretty much between Kirk and Alexi at this point doesn't change one simple fact. I keep my word.

 

Elections really only work if people vote their conscience. Voting to "teach a lesson," or for "strategic purposes," or for "the lesser of two evils," or "vote trading" is exactly the kind of BS the professional politicians do. It's exactly what is causing a lot of the problems we face today. They willingly, knowingly violate their oaths of office in order to get their pet legislation passed, whatever it may be. The only way to put a stop to it is to stop voting for the people who do it.

 

I can't in good conscience cast a vote for someone who I know for a fact will break his oath of office. I can't vote for someone to represent me, when that someone does not support or believe in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. It doesn't matter to me what the balance of power in Washington is, or what political party someone comes from (even when they seem to completely ignore the party platform, but still claim to be from that party). If there ends up being a decent third party candidate on the ballot, he or she will get my vote. Otherwise I'll skip that race or write in someone I think would be a good candidate. I'm voting for someone to represent me, and Kirk is not someone who will do that, so he won't get my vote.

[Jeff Johnson]

I have exactly ONE REASON to vote for Kirk- to cancel out the one vote of some idiot that thinks thier crooked democrat candidate (Alexi G) is the right man for the job.

We've been over this before and I don't think anyone changed thier mind. I have absolutely no respect for Kirk but will hold my nose and vote. Before then, I will be contacting his campaign, attending meet-and-greets, etc to let them know my views.

[Federal Farmer]

Yep, I was all set to vote against Kirk to make a point. But I cannot abide a out-and-out crook being elected. Kirk is an a-hole and against our cause, but I haven't seen any evidence that he is a crook. To me that trumps any 'point'.

[mauserme]

Can someone who knows more about this than I do help me understand something?

 

If the Demoncrats keep the Senate then Senator Reid (if he wins his election), Senator Schumer, or similar will be President of the Senate. The D's will seat the committees and have great control over what bills come to the floor.

 

If the Republicans gain control they pick the Senate President and get the legislative control that comes with the majority. So even if Mr. Kirk votes opposite of what I would like most of the time, having an extra "R" (or maybe a lower case "r") in the Senate might accomplish a good greater than just a symbolic party line count.

 

Is that kind of it?

 

EDIT: BTW, I didn't purposely misspell Democrat above but I see no reason to fix it.

[Buzzard]

Can someone who knows more about this than I do help me understand something?

 

If the Demoncrats keep the Senate then Senator Reid (if he wins his election), Senator Schumer, or similar will be President of the Senate. The D's will seat the committees and have great control over what bills come to the floor.

 

If the Republicans gain control they pick the Senate President and get the legislative control that comes with the majority. So even if Mr. Kirk votes opposite of what I would like most of the time, having an extra "R" (or maybe a lower case "r") in the Senate might accomplish a good greater than just a symbolic party line count.

 

Is that kind of it?

 

EDIT: BTW, I didn't purposely misspell Democrat above but I see no reason to fix it.

 

That's EXACTLY it!! You get an "A" for the course!

 

Some people think if the Democrats hold onto power it may be our own Sen. Dick Durbin that will become Senate President. I think if that happens he could be WORSE than Harry Reid because he is even MORE of a socialist liberal than Reid is!!

[papa]

That is exactly the reason I will vote for Kirk! I fear what will happen to our country if we don't wrest control from the Democrats.

[mauserme]

Thanks.

 

Until now I didn't think I would vote at all in that race and probably won't know for sure until I get to the booth. But at least I see some logic in using him to put the brakes on in the hope that the Republicans get the Senate and decide to keep him marginalized.

 

He's a bigger threat, of course, if the Democrats keep control as they would bring bills up that he likes to vote for. In that regard Giannoulias would be no worse and may be easier to replace next time with a more conservative candidate. Not that I could ever vote for this guy, but not voting could end up being the equivalent.

 

If only the GOP could adopt some criteria, like you have to not be extremely liberal, to be part of their club...

[gravyboy77]

You think B.S Barry will be able to get hardcore left-wing anti-gun supreme court nominees like Kagan And Sotomayor through a Republican Senate? Thats the big prize here. If the Republicans fall a few seats short of the senate majority they muck up the Democrats plans for Cap$Tax, Amnesty, and other stuff they couldn't pass this year, but the Republicans take over the senate? It's Game Over for the Dems.

 

from 10 contested seats to 15

The expanding Senate playing field

As we sat down to rank which ten Senate races are most likely to flip party control on November 2, it became immediately clear that our Line wasn't big enough.

 

The simple truth is that over the past six to nine months, the Senate playing field has expanded to the point where there are now (at least) 15 races where a party switch is a real possibility -- if not a probability.

 

Most of that expansion has benefited Republicans, who have effectively taken advantage of a national playing field tilted in their favor to take previously non-competitive races like Washington and Wisconsin and put them on the target list.

 

 

 

Democrats have a few more opportunities as well -- most notably in Kentucky where ophthalmologist Rand Paul's ® uneven campaign has created an opening for state Attorney General Jack Conway. (An independent poll released Thursday showed the two in a statistical dead heat.)

 

All told, the Cook Political Report now rates a whopping 18 races as either likely to switch, leaning switch or straight tossups. TheRothenberg Political Report ranks 15 races with the potential to switch sides.

 

With all of that in mind, we are expanding the Senate Line from 10 to 15 races in an attempt to bring Fixistas the most accurate picture of the competitive contests this fall. (And, even in the expanded Line some real races like New Hampshire's open seat or Louisiana Sen. David Vitter's re-election race don't make the cut.)

 

Our Line is below. Have thoughts of your own? The comments section awaits.

 

To the Line!

 

15. California (Democratic-controlled): Republicans have a serious (and well-funded) nominee in former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina. But, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) is a powerhouse in her own right, having survived three tough election battles. (Boxer was also sitting on $11 million cash on hand at the end of June.) The ad wars have yet to begin in earnest, but with recent polling showing Fiorina leading Boxer by a significant amount among independents, this is going to be a close one. (Previous ranking: N/A)

 

14. Kentucky (Republican controlled): Ophthalmologist Rand Paul ® has hit into a few potholes, including recently disrespecting the "Fancy Farm" event that is sacred in Kentucky politics. But next to Nevada GOP Senate candidate Sharron Angle's struggles, Paul's political sins seem relatively minor. Look for Democrats to press Paul on whether supports the federal legislative largesse that is the lifeblood of economically distressed areas in eastern Kentucky. (Legendary columnist Al Cross laid out Paul's problems in that region expertly.) If Paul plays it smart and keeps his sometimes-unusual ideology in check, this should be a hold for the GOP in such a conservative state. (Previous ranking: N/A)

 

13. Washington (D): The results of Tuesday night's primary were a good indication of how close the race between Sen. Patty Murray (D) and former state Sen. Dino Rossi ® this fall is likely to be. Add up all of the votes cast for Republicans on Tuesday and you get 49.8 percent; add up the Democratic votes and you get 48.4 percent. (Thank you "First Read"!) Internal polling on both sides affirms that this is a straight toss up. (Previous ranking: N/A)

 

12. Wisconsin (D): Republicans may be more bullish about Wisconsin -- and Oshkosh businessman Ron Johnson ® -- than about any other race in the country. Johnson drew rave reviews during a sitdown with the Cook Political Report -- no easy graders -- and the struggling Wisconsin economy makes the state ripe for a surprise. But, Sen. Russ Feingold (D) is a very skilled politician who understands the danger he faces and won't go down easily. (Previous ranking: N/A)

 

11. Colorado (D): Appointed Sen. Michael Bennet (D) survived a surprisingly strong primary challenge in the former state House SpeakerAndrew Romanoffearlier this month and watched as the GOP establishment pick -- former Lt. Gov. Jane Norton -- lost to Weld County prosecutor Ken Buck. Democrats could barely contain their glee at the general election matchup and quickly began the work of painting Buck as too conservative for the state. Smart state Democrats, however, know that Buck is an able candidate who might actually be more problematic for Bennet in an outsider-favored year like this one. (Previous ranking: N/A)

 

10. Missouri ®: Secretary of State Robin Carnahan (D) released a

this week, using the words of the news media (damn media!) to paint Rep. Roy Blunt ® as an architect of the Trouble Asset Relief Program (TARP), a.k.a. the 2008 bank bailout. Meanwhile, Blunt's campaign stumbled with its own web ad, pulling it after receiving criticism for using an image of Ground Zero. The Show Me State has moved against President Obama but Carnahan is a quality candidate likely to keep the race close. (Previous ranking: 9)

 

9. Ohio ®: This is one of the quintessential tests of the Democrats' strategy of tying Republican candidates to former President George W. Bush. Put plainly, if it works here, it will work elsewhere. That's because Ohio is such a key swing state and, his Bush ties aside, former Rep.Rob Portman ® is clearly the superior candidate to Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher (D). (Previous ranking: 8)

 

8. Nevada (D): Even Republicans acknowledge that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has run a flawless campaign since former state Assemblywoman Sharron Angle emerged as the surprise GOP nominee in June. Reid has pummeled Angle for her controversial stances on just about everything, a strategy aided by the Republican nominee's not-ready-for-primetime gaffes on the campaign trail. And yet, the most recent, reliable independent poll on the race shows Reid at 46 percent to Angle's 44 percent. Reid almost certainly has a vote ceiling right around where he is today. The question is whether that will be enough in a field with a variety of third-party candidates and a "none of the above" option. (Previous ranking: 7)

 

7. Florida ®: It's an open secret -- as we wrote earlier this week -- that most establishment Democrats believe their best chance of winning this seat in the fall rests with Gov. Charlie Crist who is running as an independent. Crist has given every indication he would caucus with Democrats if elected and a recent Quinnipiac poll showed him leading a three-way race. Former state House Speaker Marco Rubio ® and likely Democratic nominee Kendrick Meek (D) will have something to say about that over the next two and a half months, however. (Previous ranking: 10)

 

6. Illinois (D): Much like former Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D), the Illinois Senate race has gone to heck and back only to end up pretty much right where it started (give or take a conviction). Both state Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias (D) and Rep. Mark Kirk ® have major baggage; Giannoulias carries the collapse of his family's bank, Kirk the controversy over his misrepresentation of his military record. But, Kirk has the benefits of a $3 million cash on hand advantage and a national environment that favors his party. Even with President Obama's personal involvement in the race, Democratic prospects here aren't what they should be. (Previous ranking: 6)

 

5. Pennsylvania (D): A series of polls released in recent days show former Rep. Pat Toomey ® opening up a steady single digit lead over Rep. Joe Sestak (D). (It's telling that the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee felt compelled to release an internal survey of its own that showed Toomey at 46 percent to Sestak's 44 percent.)This is a race where the two parties are far apart; Republicans see it moving firmly in their direction while Democrats note that

. (Previous ranking: 5)

 

4. Delaware (D): Nobody is disputing that both Rep. Mike Castle ® and New Castle County Executive Chris Coons (D) are both capable candidates. But, Castle has a moderate image and a track record of winning in a blue state that's going to be hard for Coons to overcome.Coons' campaign has, of late, started showing a willingness to engage, which should be taken as a good sign for Democrats. And, Delaware's clear Democratic lean should help keep it close. (Previous ranking: 2)

 

3. Indiana (D): Former Sen. Dan Coats ® suffers from a similar problem afflicting several GOP candidates in top races: a connection to the GOP's less-than-attractive past. (In addition to serving in the Senate during the 1990s, Coats worked as a lobbyist.) What makes this race different is that it is being run in Indiana. Despite voting for President Obama in 2008, the Hoosier State seems to have swung hard back into the Republican column. Democrats tout Rep. Brad Ellsworth's (D) conservative credentials but he voted for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, the stimulus and the Democratic health care bill. All are liabilities in this sort of electoral environment. (Previous ranking: 3)

 

2. Arkansas (D): Comeback kid Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D) managed to eke out a win in her runoff race against Lt. Gov. Bill Halter but her path to victory in the fall is becoming less and less clear. In a state where President Obama is deeply unpopular, and in an environment that's punishing for incumbents, what was a tough race to begin with is now looking like a foregone conclusion. A Reuters/Ipsos poll last month showed Lincoln trailing Rep. John Boozman ® by 19 points. (Previous ranking: 4)

 

1. North Dakota (D): Three words: Stairway to Hoeven. (Previous ranking: 1)

 

 

 

 

 

[scout26]

I did pretty much the same thing as woodchip. I wrote Rep Kirk and explained that if he wanted my vote, then Cap&Tax is a no-go along with and especially his stance on the 2A.

 

I got nothing but junk mail in return.

 

I got a call a week or three ago to be on his telephone town hall. He ignored me and my question about his stance on the 2A.

 

Unless and until he changes his stance on the 2A, I probably will not mark my ballot for anyone for Senator or I may write in Robert Zadek. I know that he is an active shooter and member of Aurora Sportsmen's Club.

 

Yes, all that stuff about who controls the committees in the Senate is somewhat important, but with the number of RINO's we have (how many again voted to confrim Kagan??), it would mean that they think we approve of their actions. Not this time. I want Kirk to see that X voted for Brady for governor and only Y(being much less then X) voted for him. Maybe the light will click on and he'll see the error of his ways.

 

I'm digusted even more by the fact that he is a Commissioned Officer in the Navy and has sworn an oath to protect and defend, yet he either has A.) failed to read it, or B.) understand the clear and plain English of the entire document.

[spec4]

Kirk will never "see the light". He is a dyed in the wool professional RINO. Yet he can be a tool (pun intended) for us to control the Senate. We must look at the bigger picture which is taking the Senate from the Dems. The old saying "politics makes strange bedfellows" applies here. Its crazy, but a vote for Kirk can actually help kill socialism.

[Xwing]

You think B.S Barry will be able to get hardcore left-wing anti-gun supreme court nominees like Kagan And Sotomayor through a Republican Senate? Thats the big prize here. If the Republicans fall a few seats short of the senate majority they muck up the Democrats plans for Cap$Tax, Amnesty, and other stuff they couldn't pass this year, but the Republicans take over the senate? It's Game Over for the Dems.

 

100% correct. We need to look at the big picture.

 

 

Unless and until he changes his stance on the 2A, I probably will not mark my ballot for anyone for Senator or I may write in Robert Zadek. I know that he is an active shooter and member of Aurora Sportsmen's Club.

 

Yes, all that stuff about who controls the committees in the Senate is somewhat important, but with the number of RINO's we have (how many again voted to confrim Kagan??), it would mean that they think we approve of their actions. Not this time. I want Kirk to see that X voted for Brady for governor and only Y(being much less then X) voted for him. Maybe the light will click on and he'll see the error of his ways.

 

It is more than somewhat important. And we have a better (although quite slim) chance of Kirk seeing the error of his ways after the election than we do of Giannoulias. Not voting, or voting a write in candidate, is giving the election to Giannoulias. Either he or Kirk is going to be our next Senator, and there's nothing anyone here can do to change that fact. What we can do is get the least repulsive one in, and then work on him to make him less of an Anti.

[Lou]

I plan on walking into the voting booth with a barf bag in my hand as I vote against Alexi.

[scout26]

double tap

mea culpa and apologies

[scout26]

You think B.S Barry will be able to get hardcore left-wing anti-gun supreme court nominees like Kagan And Sotomayor through a Republican Senate? Thats the big prize here. If the Republicans fall a few seats short of the senate majority they muck up the Democrats plans for Cap$Tax, Amnesty, and other stuff they couldn't pass this year, but the Republicans take over the senate? It's Game Over for the Dems.

 

There were 9 RINO's that voted for Sotomayor and 6 RINO's that voted to confirm Kagan. Had all the R's stuck together, they could have prevented these socialists/communists from sitting on the USSC and re-writing the US Constitution from the bench. At least it would have force Obama to go back and find someone at least a little more center-left then hardcore left. I bet Kirk woudl have voted to confirm both also.

 

If given a choice between ONLY Kirk and Giannoulias, I'd hold my nose and vote for Kirk. BUT since there are other choices, I will choose one of those that more closely represents what I believe and hold dear. Do I think that person will win, probably not. But then, I'm not voting to "pick the winner". I'm voting for someone to REPRESENT ME. Like I said, if Kirk wins I want him to see that got fewer votes then Brady, et al. THEN maybe he'll see the error of his ways, read the Constitution (and maybe Heller and MacDonald) and have his come to Jesus moment WRT 2A.

[templar223]

My position on this election falls back on my tried and true policy.

 

If the Republican candidate is as anti-gun as the Democrat candidate, I will either vote for the Democrat or a 3rd party alternative in an effort to defeat the Republican so we have a CHANCE at a pro-gun Republican next time around.

 

The Illinois Republican Party, until Brady anyway, hasn't been getting my message.

 

John

[Talonap]

Reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw for the last presidential election:

 

"Vote for McCain - He Sucks Less..." (Substitute "Kirk")