Posted on 01/27/2010 6:55:33 AM PST by Daniel T. Zanoza
On Monday, January 25th, Special Report on the FOX News Channel ran a story reported by Steve Brown. The piece was extensive by network news standards. Brown's analogy of Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts to what's going on in the U.S. Senate race in Illinois ran for roughly two minutes and forty seconds. That's a huge piece in journalistic standards, especially when FOX's Special Report is a one-hour program. If you take out time for commercials and the two panel discussions which take place at the end of the broadcast, this leaves little time for the presentation of hard news which Special Report falls into.
The FOX News journalist suggested U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk (R-10th-IL) may be the recipient of a ground swell of grass roots support in Illinois in his bid to secure the nomination in the GOP's U.S. Senate primary and in the general election in November. Wrong! That ain't gonna happen. A Massachusetts-type Scott Brown victory is not going to take place in Illinois. If FOX had done their homework regarding Kirk--which obviously they did not--they would realize the political climate in Illinois regarding Kirk's candidacy is toxic.
Here are some facts about Kirk. He is a pro-partial birth abortion supporting, anti-gun voting, homosexual rights supporting, Cap and Trade voting, opponent to traditional marriage candidate. Kirk makes Scott Brown look like a candidate hand picked by the John Birch Society. The truth is Kirk is being forced to spend some of his huge campaign war chest to fend off pro-family candidates in Illinois--many of whom have little money. They are, in alphabetical order: John Arrington, Patrick J. Hughes, Donald "Don" Lowery, Andy Martin and Kathleen Thomas. If Kirk happens to win the GOP primary, these people will not storm the barricades in their support of Kirk against his Democratic opponent in November--no matter who that may be. In fact, there is a likely possibility, if nominated, Kirk's opposition in the general election would be better on the social issues than Kirk.
It is certain the establishment media in Illinois is backing Kirk--for now. You see, if Kirk wins the Republican Party primary on February 2nd, this same media would attack him relentlessly, even though he embraces many of their values. What would be stealthfully addressed by the left-leaning press and his Democratic opponent? I'm sure the first subject they would tackle would involve questions regarding Kirk's possible closeted homosexuality. Sure, I know, Kirk gave some sort of flimsy denial to the Associated Press, but if anyone thinks this issue has been swept under the rug, think again. And then there's Kirk's close relationship with his former Republican colleague Mark Foley (FL) who resigned from the House of Representatives in disgrace due to his penchant for seeking out relationships with underaged male Capitol pages. Kirk had to know what was going on and did nothing to expose a pedophile who was slithering through the halls of Congress.
But here's one more interesting tidbit. Kirk obviously believed the primary race would simply be a walk in the park. However, on Tuesday (Jan. 26th), Kirk conducted what had to be a highly expensive teleconference with likely Republican voters from central Illinois. Participants were allowed to ask uncensored questions, including queries about Kirk's vote for Cap and Trade and his subsequent flip flop on this issue when he was criticized after being handpicked by the state and national GOP establishment to make a run for the U.S. Senate. Some national leaders, including Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele, later backed off from their early endorsement of Kirk. This teleconference had to cost a mint. The operative question is why did the Kirk campaign feel the need to keep spending precious cash in the run up to the Illinois primary?
By the way, Kirk conducted a poll during the teleconference and revealed the results to those listening in. Near the end of the call, Kirk asked if those on the line would vote for him. However, he did not release those results. Hmmm.
Kirk is also running ads across the state where he touts his phony military missions OVER Kosovo, Iraq and in Afghanistan. Do they have a Club Med in Afghanistan? It is impossible to believe Kirk, as a sitting Congressman, was ever in harm's way during any of these so-called missions to defend America from its enemies.
Roger Ailes, FOX's CEO, needs to make sure his network is not advancing a moderate-style Republican political agenda. But FOX News did it before when they tried to shove former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney down the throats of conservatives. After the Romney campaign fizzled, FOX jumped on the McCain bandwagon and poof! Barack Obama is President of the United States and our country is in the greatest jeopardy since the Civil War because of Obama's policies.
Cut the bull, FOX. Let's try to stick with the fair and balanced thing. I hope you remember this phrase because it is your motto, isn't it?
NOTE TO STEVE BROWN: Do better homework in the future.
My vote is going to Patrick Hughes.. That is the buzz in Illinois.
Classic move for Steele, to ‘later’ back off of their early support of Kirk, who YOU WOULD THINK they would’ve already vetted before supporting him, but instead wait for the inevitable revelations and bad polling results, gleaned from wherever they can be gleaned. The RNC is quietly lurking behind ever (R) candidate, either supporting or NOT supporting, and waiting for the chance either to bail, or rush in. They simply don’t know what their mission should be, and those are the moves of a craven and cowardly organization, afraid both to miss the boat, or get on the boat.
But Mark Kirk sure smells like Marcia Coakley. A big bucketload of liberal FAIL (Combiner-style).
So what are we going to do, vote for one of Obama’s henchmen Alexi Giannoulias?? Kirk is going to win the primary so it is going to be the lesser of two evils. At least with Kirk it gives the GOP one more seat towards taking control of the senate.
Why ratify the choice of another crooked Combiner ? Kirk will only give aid and comfort to his rodent pals. I prefer Democrats to serve openly, not as RINO/DIABLOs infesting the GOP deliberately causing maximum damage within.
In Feb. 2006, I heard many Republicans say that we should nominate then-Treasurer Judy Topinka, for governor. They said that she would win the general election, since she’s moderate. She won her primary, but, in the general election, she got 38% of the vote. In Jan. 2008, I heard many Republicans say that we should nominate Dr. Steve Sauerberg, for the U.S. Senate. They said that he would win the general election, since he’s moderate. He won his primary, and, in the general election, he got 29% of the vote. These facts prove that, in Illinois statewide elections, moderate Republicans don’t win. If Kirk wins the primary, he’ll lose the general election. Within the past 20 years, Illinois has had one republican U.S. senator, Peter Fitzgerald, a conservative. This year, we should nominate Don Lowery, the conservative candidate who has the most political experience, as a judge and a state’s attorney. I voted for him, two weeks ago.
Michael Steele and John Cornyn keep sticking their noses (and party money) in these intraparty races. For this, they both must go.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.