 |
| 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.
-30-
No comments:
Post a Comment