U. S. Senate candidate Andy Martin emerges as the big winner. Both the corrupt bipartisan “Combine” and so-called “conservatives” suffer near-death experiences. Martin offers his counterintuitive analysis of what happened on February 2nd. Although Republican Party bravado claims “Illinois is next,” Illinois is still last. The media continue to be fascinated with Andy’s advertising operations, http://www.mediabistro.com/agencyspy
“The name you can trust”
Republican for U. S. Senator/2010
Suite 4406, 30 E. Huron Street
Chicago, IL 60611-4723
Toll-free tel. (866) 706-ANDY
Toll-free fax (866) 707-ANDY
Web site: http://www.AndyforUSSenator.com
February 3, 2010
To all of you who voted for me, supported me and encouraged me in the primary I am deeply appreciative. Thank you.
You are probably wondering what happened in the election yesterday. The usual blather from the liberal media conceals, not reveals, the truth. I was the big winner. The corrupt bipartisan “Combine” and the so-called “conservative” wing of the Republican Party were both big losers. Surprised at my conclusions? Let me explain. After a little reflection I think you’ll agree with my analysis.
First, let me take you behind the scenes of my own campaign.
I. Andy’s team prepares to run a primary campaign
The biggest problem we faced during the campaign was a corrupt Republican Party leadership that was trying to rig the primary for Mark Kirk. Beginning on August 20th the resident thug Randy Pollard refused to let me speak at Republican Day in Springfield. The adulterous “legal counsel” of the party, Brian Sheahan, tried to harass me at the State Fair. On and on it went. A circuit judge had to order them to stop harassing me.
In preparing an advertising campaign, we faced a major problem. Because of the large number of anti-Kirk candidates (5), we felt that any ads we ran could help the other candidates as much as my ads helped me. I don’t know if Kirk “salted” candidates in the primary to split up the opposing vote but it sure looks that way. But even if all of the other four candidates were genuine, they were dividing the Kirk opposition vote five ways. Not good for me.
Finally, in mid-December we reached the moment of truth. If we ran no ads, or only generic ads, their impact would be limited. If we ran hard-hitting ads, they might damage Kirk but benefit all of his opponents.
Negative ads work best in a two-person race. If you hammer your opponent successfully, voters switch to you because there is nowhere else to go. If you hammer one of five candidates, people may decide to vote against the target candidate but then support one of the other opponents. We took the risk of running hard-hitting ads because only aggressive anti-Kirk ads could break through the media fog of unabashed support for the Kirkster. In other words, we ran hard-hitting ads because practically speaking we had no other option but to take the risk of helping Kirk’s other opponents as well.
II. Andy’s ads start hitting Kirk with the truth
On December 28th we began bombarding Kirk with the truth. Pat Brady immediately tried to smear me. As he did through the campaign, Brady was actually working against Kirk’s interests. During the next month we exposed Kirk as both a personal and political fraud. Kirk did nothing while a pedophile, Mark Foley, roamed the House of Representatives importuning the children who work there as pages. Kirk was part of the pedophilia cover-up.
Kirk shamelessly inflates his military credentials. We exposed his fraudulent military claims. Each of my commercials was meticulously documented. We exploded the false image of Kirk that the media were feeding Republican voters.
Unfortunately for me, the attacks on Kirk also energized his other opponents to think they had a chance of winning the primary. One candidate attacked my ads publicly and then used Paul Caprio to distribute the same material privately. My ads took Kirk down from what might have been a blowout victory and dropped him into an embarrassing situation where almost half of the Republican Party’s primary base voted against him.
III. Is Kirk really a winner?
Half the primary electorate voted against Kirk despite media claims that his opponents lacked the resources to run an effective campaign. So, if your five opponents lack any money, and only one of them runs broadcast ads on a limited basis (me,) and the rest run no ads or virtually no ads (Hughes) how can that farcical imbalance be deemed an electoral victory?
“Winners” emerge from real contests, not from lopsided and rigged campaigns where everything is fixed in advance and half the voters still reject the favorite. Kirk was a big loser on February 2d. Don’t believe the media and the Pat Brady-inspired lies to the contrary.
IV. Republicans saw a similar situation in the gubernatorial primary
The same thing that happened to me, where my advertising either benefited or encouraged other candidates, also happened in the Republican gubernatorial primary. Senator Bill Brady lacked the money to run ads in the Chicago TV market. In the closing days of the primary, Andy McKenna began to run ads attacking Kirk Dillard for his 2008 support of Barack Obama.
Although McKenna was trying to knock off Dillard so McKenna himself would win, McKenna was not strong enough to reach the top. Instead, McKenna’s attacks on Dillard appear to have had the unintended consequence of nominating Bill Brady.
That’s what happens when you run attack ads in a multi-primary candidate. Your ads could end up benefiting someone other than yourself. In the governor’s race, it is clear that McKenna’s attacks were the little extra needed to cut down Dillard so Brady could eke out a victory. I am sure that is not the outcome McKenna wanted.
V. So-called “pro-family” conservatives became a laughingstock
Patrick Hughes hired Paul Caprio to “bag” endorsements for his flatulent senatorial candidacy. Caprio created the bogus “STOP” campaign as a fig leaf to promote Hughes. Christian conservatives were invited in August to attend a “screening” meeting that Caprio had rigged in advance in favor of Hughes. From the first day he announced, when he claimed he had $400,000 in "commitments,” Pat Hughes was a liar and a loser.
In the closing days of the primary Hughes was shoveling conservative “endorsements” out the door. Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham, Conservative “this” and Conservative “that.” In the end he had a long list of “endorsements” but none of them actually campaigned for him. On Election Day he could not break 20%. Hughes will go down in history as the man that blew a half million dollars without ever running a single broadcast ad. But his chauffeur was paid $10,000.
Now Hughes is supporting “party unity” and, no surprise, Paul Caprio has his palm out to be greased again. And they call themselves Christians. The “pro-family” movement was exposed as a bunch of incompetent, conspiratorial blowhards. Jack Roeser, who funds almost all of these weenies, lost three out of four campaigns and attacked the only genuine conservative who ran an honest campaign (me). Roeser is another imperious joker.
VI. Where do I go from here?
I will be taking time off and going on vacation. Lots of things get put on hold when you become involved in a statewide race.
I was interviewed in December by NBC News for a special program to air on MSNBC in March. I still can’t tell you what the program is about, because they were never clear, but no doubt I will continue to be a national figure in the anti-Obama movement.
I have blocked out ten days in April to return to Hawai’i to do continuing research on Barack Obama’s origins. I don’t yet know if the sponsorship for the trip will be available.
Locally, before I leave I plan to announce an anti-Mark Kirk effort. Kirk and his supporter Pat Brady ran a dirty campaign and they will not receive my support. I urged Brady to stop the dirty tricks, so the party could unite after the primary. Brady refused. The party will not unite. By comparison, the Democrats that voted for various U. S. Senate candidates will all support the winner.
In the Republican Party, the Republicans who voted against Kirk in the primary will not support him in the general election. Had Brady run a fair and honest primary, I was prepared to support the winner of the primary, as I have in the past. But because Brady is just as crooked as the rest of the sleazy people in the Republican Party’s leadership, Brady has forfeited party unity.
Summing up, the bipartisan “Combine” of corruption was a big loser. The candidates closest to the Combine did not win yesterday. And instead of having a gubernatorial winner, Republicans temporarily have two “winners” who are going to have to fight it out until one of them is acknowledged as the undisputed nominee. Not good. No one has and idea how long that could go on.
In the senate race, because Pat Brady ran a dirty campaign and poisoned the process, he has a candidate, Kirk, who is popular with the media but who was rejected by almost half of the Republican base. To me, that rejection is not a good sign. Kirk may have drawn Quislings like Pat Hughes and John Arrington to his “unity” breakfast on Wednesday, but neither of them has much to offer a statewide campaign. There is no unity when half the candidates refuse to appear with the “winner.” As Kirk’s homosexual Praetorian Guard takes working control of the Republican Party the “rumors” about Kirk will become shriller and more insistent.
As for me, with the limited resources available to my campaign we did a good job of telling the truth about Mark Kirk and stopping the media from completely stealing the senate primary. I feel good about my efforts. That’s why I believe I am a big winner. I live to fight another day for truth, justice and the American way.
P. S. I’m not asking for a recount. The primary was rigged from start to finish.