Monday, February 22, 2016

EXTRA: Kirk, Ricketts family, both on political 'naughty' list -- does the GOP like anybody these days?

So it seems that Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., is choosing to side with the latter part of his identifier, rather than the former.

KIRK: Chose state over party; will it hurt him?
As in he’s an Illinoisan more than a Republican.

FOR KIRK ON Monday took a stand with regards to the replacement of Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court of the United States.

As is turns out, the Chicago Sun-Times reported that Kirk says he wants President Barack Obama to make a nomination to the high court later this spring, with the U.S. Senate to review that nomination probably sometime during the summer.

The new justice could be in place long before Election Day, the way Kirk sees it.

Of course, that creates the political dynamic of having Kirk challenge the leadership of his own political party – as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., was quick to claim the post should be left vacant for the rest of this year.

AFTER ALL, HE wants the chance of a Republican president in this year’s elections making the appointment as one of his first actions upon victory. Presuming, of course, that a Republican actually wins the November election.

Now this shouldn’t really be a surprise, because Kirk has never been as hardline ideologue as some of his Republican caucus colleagues when it comes to social issues. He is a former military man, which likely is the primary reason he chooses to be a Republican even though he’s from a Democrat-leaning state.

So the fact that he doesn’t want to give either Tammy Duckworth or Andrea Zopp an issue to use against him come the general election cycle makes his public statements predictable.

Who is more angered? Mitch at Mark, or...
Particularly since Kirk also said he thinks any person nominated to the high court by Obama ought to be of a moderate political persuasion. Meaning the leftist ideologues might have to temper their fantasies of a societal takeover.

BUT THIS CAN have consequences because it means Kirk is challenging the hardline that his political party wanted to take – NOTHING for Obama! Could it be the party bigwigs wind up putting the pressure on the big money influences that offer support to Republican candidates; ensuring they cut off Kirk’s share of the cash flow from the political spigot?

Could he wind up hampered enough to the point where he can’t compete against the possibility of an adequately-funded campaign by either Duckworth or Zopp (it’s not going to be Napoleon Harris – no matter how much the one-time NFL football player fantasizes about going to Washington, D.C).

... Trump at the Ricketts?
It seems Kirk is putting his stake in getting the love of Illinois residents, rather than that of his political party, which is likely to start treating him like a pariah!

Probably similar to how would-be Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump is trying to treat the Ricketts family. They’re the wealthy ones from Nebraska, with several of their children living in the Chicago area, who have as a hobby their ownership of the Chicago Cubs.

THE RICKETTS ARE the type of wealthy people who like to express themselves with their checkbooks – and in this election cycle have given money to the presidential dreams of Scott Walker, Jeb Bush, Lindsay Walker, Chris Christie, Rick Perry and Marco Rubio.

In short, they’ve backed just about everybody EXCEPT Trump. Who doesn’t need their campaign money. But it’s the principle – how dare they express political love for everybody BUT him!

Will Wrigley Field protect from Wrath of Trump?!?
Trump used a Twitter account, according to the Chicago Tribune, to publicly make his criticism, writing that the Ricketts’ family, “better be careful, they have a lot to hide!”

Which makes me wonder what kind of retribution he has planned for people who aren’t “loyal” to his ideals. Perhaps he’s the type who’d seek payback against Kirk for suggesting that Trump himself shouldn’t be entitled to make the Supreme Court pick all by himself without the “advise and consent” of the U.S. Senate.


No comments: