Will Illinois Democrats Blow The Race Against Sitting Duck Mark Kirk By Nominating Someone From The Republican Wing Of The Democratic Party?

Mark Kirk, who lies about military decorations he never got, wants to teach North Korea a lesson-- with a campaign fundraiser

In theory, Mark Kirk has one of the most vulnerable Republican-held seats coming up in 2016. Illinois has tended to elect Democrats to the U.S. Senate. Since Paul Douglas defeated GOP incumbent Charles Brooks in 1948, only one Republican, anti-war liberal Chuck Percy, held that seat, currently held by Dick Durbin, who won reelection last month 1,850,862 (53.1%) to 1,503,942 (43.1%).

The other Senate seat was won by the legendary Everett Dirksen in 1950 until he died in office on September 7, 1969. Republican Gov. Richard Ogilvie appointed Ralph Smith, also a Republican, to the seat 10 days after Dirksen died and scheduled a special election 2 months later. Adlai Stevenson crushed him 58% to 42% and held the seat until 1981 when he retired and the seat was won by conservative Democrat Alan Dixon who was successfully primaried in 1992 by Carol Moseley Braun after he joined the GOP in confirming right-wing sex predator Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. Six years later Peter Fitzgerald became the first Republican in two decades to hold an Illinois Senate seat by beating Braun, although very narrowly and with only 50.35% of the vote. He was widely considered to have no chance at reelection and retired after one term, replaced by Barack Obama. When Obama left the seat to become president, grotesquely corrupt Democratic Governor Rod Blagojevich sold the seat to Roland Burris (January 12, 2009). Burris' short tenure was plagued with calls for him to resign, not just by Republicans but by Democrats like Governor Pat Quinn and U.S. Senator Dick Durbin. He was officially admonished by the Senate Ethics Committee and there was no chance he could run again-- he only raised $845 forces campaign and withdrew. Democrats replaced him with state Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias, who was steeped in the stench of corruption from his involvement with predatory banksters and political mobster Tony Rezko. Because of the corruption the mediocre Republican candidate, Mark Kirk, managed to beat him 1,778,698 (48.0%) to 1,719,478 (46.4%), a Green candidate polling 117,914 (3.2%), enough to deny Giannoulias and the transactional corrupt Machine Democrats the seat. And that's how we come to have Republican Mark Kirk in office now.

Kirk should be relatively easy to defeat-- but he won't be because Democrats are hurtling towards nominating an opponent from the thoroughly corrupt Republican wing of the Democratic Party, either reactionary Blue Dog Cheri Bustos, corporate shill and New Dem Bill Foster or conservative-leaning Tammy Duckworth. How bad are the 3 Democrats posturing about running against Kirk? Below are their Progressive Punch lifetime crucial vote scores; in way of comparison Jan Schakowsky's score is 96.59 and Danny Davis' is 93.00.

• Duckworth- 65.20
• Foster- 55.30
• Bustos- 44.49

All three run Republican-lite campaigns and none are even remotely fit to represent Democratic Party values and vision in any kind of a campaign anywhere. Bustos has the single worst voting record of any Illinois Democratic congressmember, so expect her to be the DCCC's first choice. It would be pretty amazing-- and unexpected-- if DSCC chair Jon Tester tried recruiting Jan Schakowsky instead.

On the other hand, Kirk is really a vile, slithery creature and his desperate attempts to raise money off SONY's tragi-comedy with Kim Jong-un and The Interview is probably offending plenty of Illinois voters who can't be terribly thrilled with his record of accomplishing nothing on their behalf. He says Sony, which is after all, run from Tokyo, not from Washington or even Los Angeles, shouldn't have pulled the movie from theaters, forgetting, perhaps, that it was the theaters that said they wouldn't show the film. He's scrambling to be THE FIRST IN THE NATION to hold a "big fundraiser" for himself showing the movie to donors-- and to teach North Korea a lesson. He took to the twitter machine and did an intreview with WBEZ-FM (91.5) trying to turn the Korea thing into part of his reelection campaign.

Kirk, in the radio interview, said he wanted to show the North Koreans that "you cannot edit what we want to see and do in the United States under the First Amendment."

The senator's spokeswoman did not respond to Tribune requests for comment.

It was unclear how Kirk planned to get a copy of the film. There has been widespread speculation that pirated copies of the film ultimately will be available even if Sony does not release it.

Peter DiCola, an associate professor of law at Northwestern University, said typically film studios own the copyright to films and then grant licenses to theaters for public performances.

Ordinarily, a campaign event would constitute a public performance, DiCola said, but because Kirk has invoked the First Amendment, the lawmaker could argue that he doesn't need a license to show the film because of the fair-use doctrine.

The fair-use doctrine may allow for the dissemination of a copyrighted work without a license if the use is deemed to be in the public interest, DiCola said. "Fair use is meant to be the safety valve for free speech concerns," he said.

DiCola said he thought that in today's world of file sharing, the movie is likely to be leaked, especially since it has been publicly screened in Los Angeles.

"Somebody at Sony or someone at the (Los Angeles) theater is going to agree with the politics of making the movie available to the public," he said.

Mitt Romney, the 2012 Republican presidential nominee, suggested in a tweet Wednesday that Sony should distribute The Interview online globally for free and that viewers be asked for a voluntary $5 contribution to fight Ebola.