while I certainly understand principled opposition to a candidate, our two party system is the reality we live under.

This is a never ending debate, so I don’t want it to even start, but I just thought I’d mention that since our nation is teetering on the edge of a radical transformation into something that none of us will recognize, maybe now is a moment in history when pragmatism should be looked at very closely by those of us who are inclined to adhere to principle.

It does no good to eschew a candidate out of principled opposition to a policy or two, if our Republic ceases to exist because of the cumulative efforts of the party his opponent will fortify.

I believe the situation is that dire, and the choices are that stark. Do we want America to continue to exist in a form that resembles the free society that made us a great nation? I assume that the answer of everyone here is a resounding “yes”. Then the choice is clear. The Democrat party must be neutered, marginalized, and minimized.

Kirk might be a RINO liberal Republican. But majority status matters. Chairmanships matter. In my opinion, at this time in the history of conservative evolution, our focus should be on elevating and electing THE MOST CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATE WHO CAN WIN WITHIN ANY GIVEN DISTRICT OR STATE.

In the Illinois Senate race, that candidate will be Mark Kirk.

Aren’t you forgetting the savior of the Senate, Mr. Brown? He is pro-choice and Redstate did everything it could to support him. I think the point is more that Kirk and Brown are representative of their constituents and we conservatives need to be pragmatic when it comes to candidates that may not be to our personal liking, but who are the best we can hope for in the districts they hail from. If we do not learn to embrace this pragmatism, there will be third party candidates in too many races who will bring the RNC down in the Nov. elections. From a governing point of view I would much rather have an RNC majority in at least one house than a stronger DNC grip on the throat of this once great nation. We must remember that the Tea Party is not really a political party but it is a movement with the power to take back the country or destroy the country, the choice will be ours.

But if I could vote in Illinois, I would still have to go to the polls and vote for Kirk as the lesser evil. Our republic is at stake if we don’t get the Dems under control.

It is Bayh in Indiana, Conrad in North Dakota, Tester and Baucus in Montana, Lincoln in Arkansas and so on. I will take a Liberal Republican in Illinois over a “lap dog” Democrat in North Dakota any day!

The unusually early Ilinois pimary had the effect of giving this race more attention than it may deserve. If it were a special election or an off year election, I may invest in Kirk. But now the table is set, it is just one of hundreds. I wish Kirk well, but leave it to the people of Illinois. There is too much going on this November for me to follow closely.

And the people of Illinois are entitled to elect whomever they wish. Kirk did win fair and square. As a Blue State Republican, I always thought one of the lamest arguments from the base is that moderate Republicans dilute the party brand. As if the electorate cant tell what the GOP stands for if 5% of its caucus is pro-choice.

The Illinois GOP and residents are entitled to representation and they cannot just lie down and give their state to socialists, thieves and thugs because some conservatives, who live far outside the state dont approve of Kirk.

Like you, I’ll never support a pro-abortion candidate. Your wisdom is clear – if one can’t support a republican in a particualr race, then one can support a GOP / pro-life candidate in another race.

I suggest that anyone who has problems with Kirk consider supporting Dan Coates in Indiana. He is a true conservative (both fiscal and social), and makes up for the dissapointment of not getting Mike Pence into the race to unseat Even Bayh.

Kirk is the best that can be hoped for in IL (as Leon points out), and ought to be supported by people that can support a pro-abortion candidate in the name of “pragmatism” over a pro-abortion democrat. For those who can’t “vote for evil” because of a moral conviction, move on to another race where your time and money will support the party and the conservative cause.

More on Bayh here – http://www.redstate.com/hoosierteacher/2010/02/03/republicans-score-big-in-indiana/

The first should be no surprise…for those who know me…

To begin with, Kirk is pro-choice, and my own personal pro-life convictions prevent me from donating to or voting for any avowedly pro-choice candidates.

The second requires some nuance from me for the purpose of consistency and principle:

First, Kirk’s win was not the result of some nefarious party or NRSC conspiracy to suppress conservative candidates. Mark Kirk simply was the best representative for GOP primary voters in Illinois, in the considered opinion of those voters.

Many of my objections to McCain, Scozzafava, Crist and others are that the Party machinery was employed to forcing them on us as candidates. I make a slight point of order here that the NRSC did openly support Kirk early on as I recall it…but that being said…it’s not like it has been for Crist.

This is a dead race to me. I would like to see Kirk win if that’s what it takes to put Republicans over the top in 2010 and give us back control…but that is counter balanced by the worry of having the majority with Kirk and his ilk further damaging the Republican brand with fiscal and social conservatives by voting for Cap and Trade and playing patty cake with the Main Twins.

I say all this to say…I am committing to doing no harm where this race is concerned…I won’t actively attack or trash Kirk unless he does something that is damaging the party as a whole…and our goals in 2010….on the other hand…I will not lift a finger to elect him either.

The “Big Tent” analogy isn’t the correct one…the correct one is a MAGNET…we need to be a MAGNET that draws these independents in who are sick and tired of what’s going on in Washington—Fred Thompson

Dems vote can vote for republicans in Illinois primary. And the do. This is why Illinois always have bad Republican candidates. Thats why we have the RINO Kirk. Until this changes Illinois will be blue with red people!
DEMs should not be able to vote in republican primaries !

It is obvious that the process played out in this race. The most Conservative candidate did not win the primary. But, that does not mean the more Conservative candidate cannot win the general.

Between the two who NOW have a chance at the seat, the choice is obvious. An 80% friend (or for that matter a 60% or 40% friend) is a lot better than an 80% enemy. I agree wholly that we, as Conservatives of any stripe, look for commonality and use that to build momentum and numbers…………instead of letting the difference be the line in the sand that forces us into a choice between pretty good and perfect. Its like shopping:

I want this;
I can live with this;
Fine, I’ll settle for this.

Even if we don’t like it, its just the way it is……….again, we’re all adults.

The fight was fought. There is nothing but sour grapes going to prevent anybody from pulling the lever for the R when it goes the way it is supposed to. Of course there are exceptions, but, short of this guy turning out to be on the take or something as revolting, I don’t see it.

IL GOP, that guy, and their voters can all go screw themselves, and I’ll leave it at that.

I’ve commented before, and am, perhaps, noted for being more interested in pro-life than conservative. But I did put my money where my mouth is, and spent three days helping Tom Morrison, beat Sue Bassi in the IL Rep 54 R primary.

So although I’ll sit on my hands concerning Kirk, I do slightly more than complain and make life difficult for moderators at RS.

An apology for my ‘just saying’ snarkiness? I apologize.

I can’t help but disagree with you regarding whether you or Redstate will endorse or financially support a candidate.

Put it this way: we consider ourselves the party of fiscal responsibility. We abhor earmarks and profligate spending. Additionally, we here at Redstate push for items like stricter ethical standards, stepping down the role of government, etc.

Yet I’ll bet 2-to-1 that Redstate endorses Roy Blunt over Robin Carnahan here in Missouri, despite the fact that he’s ethically deficient and seems to have no problems spending our money haphazardly, so long as it’s spent on “Republican” items. He’s not a conservative; rather, he’s a Republican who will strongly adhere to the party lines no matter whether its a Reagan or a Rockefeller running the show. But it’s OK, though, because Blunt is pro-life.

Don’t get it twisted; despite my distaste for Blunt, I’ll probably donate some to him if I can afford it, and I’ll vote for him in November. But why is our “line in the sand” abortion? I’m strongly pro-life, but my thought is that, if we are going to draw a line anywhere, it should be on areas where we have a strong majority support, and don’t have sharp divisions in the culture, especially in bluer areas. Otherwise, we play to win, we don’t leave our own out on the battlefield, and we then work on getting the people in that district and the representatives in that district more conservative once we’ve got someone in that seat and can afford to try and get a little more “pure”.

I agree with everything you said about Kirk. But what we really need from you is a statement about your touting Andy A. for Governor at a possible cost to Bill Brady. You steered good conservative voters away from voting for a solidly conservative candidate with a record to prove it. And now Brady is barely clinging to a lead of 750 votes. With most of the precincts left to be counted being from Cook County, in all likelihood Brady will be passed by Dillard. If that happens you share in the responsibility, along with Gateway Pundit.

I hope Kirk beats the crook.

However, my money and my efforts will be going to other races. Races where I can *enthusiastically* support my candidate. I want Toomey, DeVore, Rubio, the guy running against Bayh, the guy running against Lincoln, Blunt.

In a world of limited time and money, you have to make choices. If I were in IL, I’d vote for the R over the D and I’d even talk to my neighbors about it.

For the rest of us…Charge!!!!

Proper grammar saves lives.

Let’s eat Grandma.
Let’s eat, Grandma.

---

Activists Taking Action: Unified Patriots

So the long and short of this post is that YOU wouldn’t vote for Kirk, but that he’s the best the shot at putting an R in the Senate.

Maybe you can clarify a bit. Do you expect pro-life voters to hold their nose and vote for Kirk, taking into account the need to return to the Rs to the Senate? If pro-lifers won’t vote for Kirk, will there be the usual wailing and gnashing of teeth that they cost the party a vote in that chamber? Will there be the usual nonsense about pro-life voters taking their ball and going home?

Its nonsense to say that you wouldn’t vote or donate to a candidate, but expect those in Illinois to consider the national ramifications if they don’t vote for Kirk.

Political contests, by their very nature are exercises in popular approbation. Therefore to believe that each candidate will fulfill all of our fundamental beliefs is an exercise in futile postulation.

One does however, expect that such a candidate will fulfill the set of rudimentary beliefs that identify us as a distinct party, which coincidentally is the primary banner Mr. Kirk ran under- we assume for our philosophical congruity.

Which leads us to ponder if his taking of the name “Republican” is a matter of political expediency in this contemporary environment? I certainly don’t know enough about him to say such is the case. It is also unclear to me if the current party platform, assumed to ascend from our core philosophical beliefs, labels Kirk an apostate for being pro-choice? Or is he simply a misguided brother whom we coddle as one of our own to peacefully coexist?

All points which need great clarity as we begin to reassert our parties’ distinctive philosophical viewpoint with the electorate. For certainly one can successfully argue that such crepuscular treatment of our core values have led to our exile with the denizens of this Republic.

I therefore welcome Mr. Kirk to the debate.

to Alexi 35.

via Illinois Review

http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2010/02/kirk-47-giannoulias-35.html

That said, I’d prefer a conservative candidate. Because morality and conscience dictate protection of life, But I’ll be hanged if I’ll sit home on Nov. 2nd.

---

Activists Taking Action: Unified Patriots

There are two ways to elect someone. You can vote for them or you can not vote for their opponent. Stop this stupidity of, “I can’t vote for this candidate because of one single issue.” If you don’t vote for him, you help the democrat win and that is far more worse for pro-life than electing a republican who is pro-choice. Don’t you get that?

Didn’t you learn anything from 2006? A bunch of self-righteous conservatives said, “We’re going to teach republicans a lesson for not being conservative enough. Look what happened. Their misguided “punishment vote” brought us Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and helped bring in Obama. Who got punished here, dummies? You don’t punish someone by shooting yourself in the head.

Get out there and vote for Kirk. Look at the bigger picture and don’t help elect the liberal because of your “integrity”. There is nothing noble about helping elect a liberal.

Blatantly stolen from the front page at Ace:

Magellan Strategies for Mark Kirk (R) 2/2/10; 885 likely voters, 3.3% margin of error Mode: Automated phone (Magellan memo)

Illinois

2010 Senate
Kirk 47%, Giannoulias 35%

Favorable / Unfavorable
Mark Kirk: 31 / 26
Alexi Giannoulias: 24 / 39
Barack Obama: 51 / 45

…like, for instance, Lincoln Chafee or Arlen Specter?

Oh, yeah, the GOP can do MUCH worse than Mark Kirk. The downside is if, after 2010, a moderate like Kirk (or, as seems unlikely, Charlie Crist) is the 41st or 50th GOP Senator.

This shouldn’t even be an issue this year.

it is understandable to act like a three year old being told to eat their peas. If we were looking at 5 or six seats and maxing at that, the anger is very justifiable and would be worth the loss.

There are people so vehemantly opposed to any gay rights they won’t vote for Campbell on THAT BASIS ALONE here in California, even if it meant robbing the United States of the opportunity to boot Babs.
But the winds are at our backs in a way we may never see again (picking up over 10 seats in ONE election)

The road to 51 at this point is filled with so-called moderates.

We are likely to get DE,ND,NV,AR,CO,PA. 47.
Indiana is iffy,but doable with Coats. 48.

The REALISTIC options left are:
Illinois, New York, Wisconsin, Washington, California.
You need 3 of these 5 to get to 51 and control of the Senate.
the front runners and POTENTIAL front runners in 3 of these states are moderate, pro-choice candidates.

With this knowledge in mind, I chose the pragmatic approach.

I will vote conservative in the primary, and support WHOEVER WINS in the general.

The thought of a Durbin-run Senate, frankly, should strike more fear in the hearts of conservatives and pro lifers than HAVING a few GOPers push us over the top who betray our social views, as deep as they must be.

This is single handedly the BEST article I have seen on this sticky issue. Good work Leon.

Here in Illinoisssssssss………while I would love to vote for conservative Repubs like Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, etc, etc. We’re here in deep blue Illinoissssssssss……..so we gots to work with what we got. Kirk’s the best alternative we have…….that we have a chance to get elected here in Illinoisssssssssssssssss. Like Erick says, if you all can’t stomach him…..then go help candidates in other states. For us here in Illinois…….where Melissa Bean is our rep, Durbin and Burris our current senators and Quinn our gov……………Kirk looks dog gone good to us!

I don’t have a problem with candidates whose personal opinions on abortion aew that it’s a choice as long as they are not advocating it or fighting at cross purposes with the party. I like the idea of conservatism attracting multitudes to the banner and I welcome those with differing opinions on a variety of issues as long as their intent is to accept us as the party with strong conservative roots and not become a roadblock. If the intent is to join us in hopes of changing us and/or they attack us then I’d more than likely side with others who do not want them around.

I don’t support/vote/volunteer for pro-life candidates just because they are pro-life, however. I don’t feel I’ve ever gotten anywhere by placing such limitations on my activism, but have gotten a lot of other things I did not want and almost nothing else I did want in exchange. I think it’s mainly because I’ve been fighting the wrong thing.

In retrospect, it appears to me that the abortion issue arose out of the decades long creep toward socialism. Population control is a big thing for socialists, and because the ideology as whole does not square with the constitution in any respect, I believe it is a big lie when these limo-libs say they are for the right of an individual to choose. I think I know where they plan(ed) to head with it and it has nothing to do with individual rights, otherwise they would not have be interested in the issue at all. Avocation of it is simply a means to an end.

Socialism is the body and abortion is but one of its organs. The body must be defeated as a first order of business before, I believe, we can ever have a hope of ridding ourselves of this sidecar social ill that is predicated upon a lie and many others that come with it in the process of restoring constitutional order to the Federal govt.

Socialists are the enemies of freedom and constitutional order, not pro-choice Republicans who have been nominated in a fair and honest primary election. So, like some, I acquiesce with the realization that should socialism completely devour our republic, any hope we’ve ever had regarding this issue will be lost when all of a sudden the choice becomes a mandate and many other things that used to also be choices no longer are.

All I can say is THANK GOD I DO NOT HAVE TO VOTE IN ILLINOIS. Illinois showed yesterday, how corrupt and bad that state is, much worse than the soviet commonwealth of Massachusetts. And, there is a huge difference between Scott Brown and Mark Kirk. Scott Brown stands with us in opposition to Partial Birth Abortion (murder) while Mark Kirk does not. Scott Brown is for parental notification and against federal funding of abortion. And, I believe Scott Brown will end up probably 70% with us, which is quite a ways from 40%, if we are lucky, that Kirk will be with us. And, Kirk has thrown his arrogance and liberalism in the faces of conservatives. He thinks we have nowhere else to go so he will get conservative votes no matter how he treats us because the other candidate is probably worse. Well, we have forgotten our roots. American was founded on Christian principles. Why are we not turning to God and asking for his help? John Adams: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Why is America is trouble right now? Consider the words of John Adams and you need not wonder any longer.

I thought I was being pragmatic when I voted for Schwarzneggar in CA. What I learned was that Schwarzneggar was just as liberal as Davis and was unable to even influence the dem control over fiscal policy. I am open minded when it comes to seeing the worse of two evils, but that doesn’t mean that we are going to win back the Republican Party in the long runt. I am going to repeat what I have been saying since I came on red state. Real conservatism has shrunk. Statistics about conservatives being in the majority doesn’t hold water or we wouldn’t be here in the first place. Now, I did here something positive about Kirk. Since his meeting with business leaders he has learned that he was wrong about supporting Cap and Trade. We will see. I hope this is true.

We were faced with a similar dilemma in MA, where Scott Brown is clearly pro-choice, with several important caveats: he does not support tax-payer funded abortions, partial birth abortion, and supports parental notification. He’s not a perfect conservative, but compared to the alternative — Martha Coakley was to the left of Ted Kennedy — it was no contest. We cannot let the perfect stand in the way of the good if we want to have a hope of preserving our constitutional republic. In the meantime, we must continue to work on changing people’s hearts re: the pro-life issue.

This is a Chicago machine win. The tea partiers still cannot overcome the machine. The mob bankster won over the rest of the condidates for the dems.
The Hillbuzz guys pointed out that we could tell how powerfull the machine and Obama still are in Il by who won. Well with this guy winning, it shows that the machine is still in charge.

Kirk is also the one they WANTED to win the repub nomination because they already have their plans to take him out right before the election by outing him from the closet.

So there you have it. The dems win, and still control Illinois.

Game over, and the STUPID republican party never even played!

So, you are saying, Mark Kirk is gay?

A republican in Hawaii’s special election, anyone know about him? and the winner take all (most votes) of Hawaii election law. Just asking, could be another brown, he has 90 days till election and not known, off the island of Oahu much! Running against two democrats though.
Support our Troops!
One Old Dog