My Photo
Location: Manchester, New Hampshire, United States

Wednesday, June 27, 2007


Executive Editor

“Factually Correct, Not
Politically Correct”





(CHICAGO)(June 27, 2007) State Senator Kirk Dillard of DuPage County did it again this week: he said he was not “endorsing” Senator Barack Obama for President, and then Dillard endorsed Obama in TV ads. What gives? Is Dilly crazy, or crazy like a fox?

After Kirk Dillard was quoted by the New York Times two weeks ago making pleasant comments about Barack Obama some Republicans told me that Dilly’s remarks were from “old interviews.” What are they going to say about Dillard’s TV endorsement of Obama? Old TV ads?

Dilly insults our intelligence when he is quoted by the Chicago Tribune as saying he has “stopped short of an endorsement." Please, Kirk, do not insult us. When you appear in someone's TV ad, you are an endorser. Appearing in a TV ad is an endorsement.

If I were Senator John McCain I would quietly and politely ask Dillard to step down as a McCain backer. Politicians are known for working both sides of the street, just like streetwalkers. But even streetwalkers know enough not to be too obvious. Dillard obviously doesn’t.

The DuPage senator apparently thinks he can be active in both parties, simultaneously. Dillard was quoted in the Daily Herald criticizing the Republican Party, stating “maybe if my party understood the issues of racial reconciliation, less partisanship and hope, they would be the majority party.” I have news for Dilly: Republicans are the majority party.

“Racial reconciliation?” In a party that appointed two (Count ‘em: 2!) African-American Secretaries of State? “Hope?” What is Dilly drinking? Or thinking?

Most Illinoisans know where I stand on “intraparty” battles and “party issues.” As to intraparty battles, I stay on the sidelines. Being a candidate is enough of a challenge without thrashing away at internal politics.

As to party “issues,” I have not hesitated to criticize the Iraq invasion and President Bush’s Middle East policies. Bushie doesn’t like me. I disagree with him. And I am right. Boom.

But I would no more blame the Republican Party for President Bush’s mistakes than blame the Democratic Party for Bill Clinton’s sexual escapades.

Where was Dillard when he claims the party was going to hell in a handbasket? Keeping his head down. And keeping quiet. He was not critical then. Now that Kirky-boy thinks the Republicans are mortally wounded he has his shank out. Et tu Brute?

There is nothing inherently wrong with switching parties. People are entitled to change their minds and even change their views. And they are certainly entitled to “make a statement” by jumping ship. But Dillard wants to represent the Republican Party in the Illinois Senate while he backs a Democrat for president from the U. S. Senate. It won’t work.

Senator John McCain has sometimes been accused of having a temper. I would be surprised if McCain is not having a fit at Dillard’s ongoing “support.” Dillard has become an embarrassment.

After Dillard was quoted in the New York Times as praising Obama I made the obvious observation that legislative politics turns on legislators working together. We expect elected officials to cooperate.

But no one has ever suggested that someone can work both sides of the street as an elected Republican official and TV endorser of a Democratic presidential candidate during the same election. Maybe Dillard is auditioning for the role of Chairman of Republicans for Obama.

We also expect candidates and elected officials to demonstrate a certain amount of opportunism in their campaigns and public service. After all, no one ever got elected by working for #2.

But Dillard and another Illinois state rep who switched to the Democratic Party are demonstrating reprehensible opportunism. I predict their disloyalty will backfire on them. Dillard and his fellow traveler obviously expect the Democrats to win, and they want to jump aboard the winning float at the start of the parade. Wrong.

These hogs are going to get slapped, not slopped.

No one can predict the outcome of the 2008 election. I know, I know. Democrats are measuring for curtains in the executive branch. But they better not overdo décor dementia.
Right now Republican prospects look bleak. As bleak as the Democrats’ electoral prospects in 1968? About the same. The “in” party during a botched war is not the favorite to repeat. But Hubert Humphrey came within a whisker of being elected in the midst of a horrible war. Some Republican could do likewise. And likely will.

But, if a Republican is elected, Dillard can look forward to being appointed a federal judge. To the U. S. District Court for the Moon.

People who switch parties because of philosophical differences can sometimes succeed. I also lived in Florida during the 1980’s when the political structure went through a wholesale realignment, and people switched parties regularly. It was acceptable and accepted. But then the parties stabilized and the process came to an end.

People who switch parties for opportunism, however, often are rejected. My prediction? Dillard’s days in the Illinois senate are over. And the switching state rep will be retired in the next primary. By Democrats. Thanks for nutt’in.

So will Dilly and Barry (Obama) ride off into the sunset together? Only if they are marching in their own parade. They may be holding hands; but don’t hold your breath.

Chicago-based Internet journalist, broadcaster and media critic Andy Martin is the Executive Editor and publisher of © Copyright by Andy Martin 2007. Martin covers regional, national and world politics with forty years of personal experience. Columns also posted at; Comments? E-mail: Media contact: (866) 706-2639. Web sites:;


Post a Comment

<< Home