His description of Fitzgerald does sound like something he made up off the top of his head. The “only beat Carol Mostly Fraud because he had his own (family) money.” is a typical mainstream media talking point they came up, after they had egg on their faces from predicting Fitzgerald didn't have a snowball's chance of hell of winning. The rest of it is something out of the Twilight Zone. Everyone knows Fitz had very high approval ratings among “likely votes” at the time he announced his retirement. And Libertarian? Never heard his politics described in such a way. That was out of left field. It would be like referring to Mark Sanford as a “Green Party type”
posted on 05/15/2009 11:55:34 PM PDT
(Impeach Obama? Yes We Can!)
You were not paying attention. Fitzgerald was not going to win re-election by any stretch of the imagination. He angered people of all stripes because he was so independent. For example, he was the one who nominated the other Fitzgerald (a NY Democrat) for US Attorney. You know, the guy who persecuted Rove and Scooter Libby.
If Fitzgerald did not have family money, he would have hard a hard time beating Mostly Fraud because he was not getting a lot of financial support from Illinois conservatives and Republicans. After all, he was not a telegenic or dynamic figure (whiny voice and all).
IMHO, he was a good senator, and I fully agree with his libertarian positions.
Your incredulousness is either disingenuous or reflects your willful ignorance. (Probably both).
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson