Posted on 07/01/2008 9:47:59 AM PDT by OneLoyalAmerican
So I'm asking Illinois FReepers, especially Veterans for help. Assist me with the Dr. Steve Sauerberg, MD US Senate campaign. It's time we increase the Illinois Senate delegation unemployment rate by one.
Contact me by FReepmail is you would like to assist.
For the good of the USA,
OLA
Sauerberg could be a corpse and I’d vote for him over Durbin.
Time they make amends.
IF
Greetings AU72:
Barry Hussein Obama was selected, not elected.
Cheers,
OLA
That’ll make him feel good :)
Three years ago, on June 14, 2005, during a debate on an energy bill, Senator Dick Durbin went out of his way to compare the actions of US troops to something that "must have happened by Nazis, Soviets in their Gulags, or some mad regime, Pol Pot or others, that had no concern for human beings." This statement shows his complete lack of respect for this nation's troops.
Of course, Durbin completely ignores the fact that "about 9 million persons, including 6 million Jews, died in Hitler's death camps, 2.7 million persons died in Stalin's gulags and 1.7 million Cambodians died in Pol Pot's scourge of his country. No prisoners have died at Guantanamo, and the Pentagon has acknowledged five instances of abuse or irreverent handling of the Koran" (from the Washington Times).
Read the complete story from MoveOnDickDurbin.org now.
As proof that Senator Durbin does not even try to represent his constituents, the Heritage Foundation highlights Durbin's attempt to rush an omnibus spending bill through the Senate, in spite of the fact that the Senate had less than two days to read through the 3,417-page bill.
The 34 pound document "contained approximately 9,800 special-interest earmarks," including a "$3.7 million earmark that says only 'Formosan Subterranean Termite, New Orleans, LA.' One assumes, although it is not...specified, that the earmark is intended for humans to combat the termite, rather than as a grant to the termites themselves."
When Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) asked for more time to fully understand the bill, Durbin snapped on him, citing the availability of the bill on the internet as offering adequate chance to read it. Apparently Durbin has mastered the art of speed reading, as "the Durbin Speed Reading standard required senators to read and comprehend 1.25 pages per minute, non-stop, for 2,768 minutes. To read nothing but the earmarks would require reading nearly 200 pages per hour. No time for sleep, meals, stretching, not even a bathroom break." And this is how the second most powerful Democrat in the Senate treats his colleagues and his job.
Read more at moveondickdurbin.org
When Dick Durbin first came to Congress in 1983, he was adamantly pro-life. That position has since changed, as Durbin admits that he allowed Washington to change his stance on abortion.
Durbin's pandering to the liberal wing of his party reveals much about his true motivation for being in Congress. Rather than having conviction in his beliefs, Durbin has been happy to change his position in order to rise in the ranks of the Democratic Party. Once again, Dick Durbin has chosen the pursuit of personal prestige and power over fighting for his true beliefs and representing the interests of Illinois.
For full details on Durbin's former pro-life stance, see moveondickdurbin.org
Despite his whining about lottery tickets and other people's wealth, it turns out that Senator Dick Durbin is a millionaire after all.
According to the Daily Herald, "after finding that his recently filed financial disclosure documents failed to list a retirement savings account that is one of his largest personal assets, he's updating the forms - a move that will officially restore him to millionaire status."
While he has criticized his opponents for having money over the years, Durbin's "aides say [his net worth] is closer to $1.3 million." For the full story moveondickdurbin.org
In 2007, Senator Dick Durbin sponsored the DREAM Act (S.774). The Heritage Foundation described the DREAM Act as "a massive amnesty that extends to the millions of illegal aliens who entered the United States before the age of 16." The Act "also allows illegal aliens to receive in-state tuition rates at public universities, discriminating against U.S. citizens from out of state and law-abiding foreign students."
A Chicago Daily Observer column captures the outrage stirred by the bill, pointing out "that students from neighboring states who are actual citizens of the USA are required to pay higher tuition rates than do illegal aliens who began squatting in the Land of Lincoln. Foreign students who complied with immigration laws are in a similar quandary. They have to pay higher tuition rates than those students who broke the law." Rather than representing the citizens of Illinois and the United States, Durbin chose to defy logic and represent those breaking our laws.
For full details, see moveondickdurbin.org
Antoin Rezko, longtime friend and fundraiser for Obama, was convicted of 16 felony corruption charges on June 4, 2008.
Rezko had a strong influence on Governor Blagojevich, which he used to secure political appointments for his friends, among other corrupt uses of his pull with the administration.
Rezko's influence has stretched to many politicians, including Senator Dick Durbin. On October 31, 1996, Rezko neared the contribution limit by donating $1250 to Durbin's "Illinois Victory '96" Congressional re-election campaign.
For more information see moveondickdurbin.org
Greetings cdga5for4:
Dr. Sauerberg is no corpse. But the Chicago machine answers the navigators gnomic verse CDMVTAE with: Early and often!
Cheers,
OLA
I like what Michael Savage calls him ...
Sick Vermin
Ping a roonie
Greetings stratboy:
Much kinder words than I had for Senator Durbin in June 2005.
Cheers,
OLA
He's not Dick Durbin. Okay, so what? I'm against Obama for President, should I vote for Cythnia McKinney because she's on the ballot against him?
Steve Sauerberg has to show HOW he will govern differntly from Durbin. And Steve Sauerberg telling GOP voters that Durbin is an horrible sleazy Senator is just preaching to the choir. He's going to have to make that case to Independant and swing voters. If the election was held today, I don't think Sauerberg would win a single township in Cook County.
It's that kind of attitude that got us four years of "Republican" George Ryan in Illinois.
Also, anyone who remembers the 1996 election when Durbin first won his Senate seat will recall that Durbin ran a very vague "middle of the road" campaign theme and refused to tell voters how he would govern, and even tried to fool pro-life voting into beliving that Dickie would govern as pro-life because he used rhetoric like "I'm a very devout Catholic and I think we need to come together and work to reduce abortion in Illinois and make sure women know their are alternatives available". The creepy thing about Sauerberg is his 2008 campaign is sounding a whole lot like Durbin in 1996.
How do we know Sauerberg won't morph into a Durbin clone once elected?
I agree with everything Bill said. Dr. Sauerberg is pro-choice, pro-gun control, and pro-Hillarycare. What are at least four issues on which Sauerberg and conservatives agree?
For example, Sauerberg can say he's for lower taxes and against illegal immigration, but that doesn't mean much because every politician will say that. Not one person will ever run on raising taxes and letting more people enter the U.S. illegally, even if they plan to do that when they do get elected.
Greetings BillyBoy:
First, I’m back from military reserve mobilization. Having been absent from Illinois during the primary season, I have little knowledge of how the Illinois primary campaign went. Let me assure you, your frustration with Republicans In Name Only (RINOs) is shared. RINOs have destroyed the Illinois Republican Party. It’s time we rebuild.
Needless to say, I don’t support RINOs, and you shouldn’t either. Before volunteering my time toward the campaign, I met with Dr. Sauerberg’s son Neal; to learn where this candidate stands. I made it clear, if Dr. Sauerberg was not solidly pro-life; I would not assist the campaign.
Neal let me know that his father and mother are activists in the pregnancy crisis action network. They walk the pro-life walk. Through their deeds, together they save helpless infant lives through adoption, not abortion. And marriage definition? One man and one woman. Well I’m finally feeling good about one national candidate with the upcoming general election.
Second, you are absolutely spot on with your assessment of the Senate campaign status. Dr. Sauerberg has hired a new campaign manager. Things are being run different at the Lombard office. The number is: 630-424-3490. You could make a difference.
Cheers,
OLA
Dr. Sauerberg is pro-choice, pro-gun control, and pro-Hillarycare. What are at least four issues on which Sauerberg and conservatives agree?
Pro-choice? Not hardly. The campaign purposely avoids wrapping itself in a pro-life blanket. While I don't agree, with such a strategy, this is Dr. Sauerberg's decision. What will Dr. Sauerberg do to overturn Roe? The answer, affirm strict constructionist judges. "The next U.S. Senator from Illinois needs to insist that any new Judges have a common-sense approach to jurisprudence."
Gun control? How is this for a refreshing change: Enforce the existing laws, as opposed to make new laws.
Pro-Hillary care? I don't think that's a very fair explanation.
Basics of the Sauerberg Your Healthcare - Your Choice Plan
In order to promote coverage for every American man, woman and child through the private sector, the government must encourage portability, competition, accessibility and individual ownership of quality medical insurance. My plan will decrease healthcare costs and make coverage available to all Americans.
The Sauerberg Your Healthcare - Your Choice Plan 10 Key Principles:
1. Portability. We must enable individuals and families to maintain their health insurance coverage when they change jobs or residences. Individuals and families must be allowed to purchase the health coverage of their choice in any state and that coverage must be portable to any job in any location.
2. Competition. To lower costs and improve healthcare quality for individuals and families, a free-market based system should be implemented to allow insurance companies to compete locally, statewide, by region and nationally.
3. Accessibility. By lowering costs and creating individual ownership, the Your Healthcare - Your Choice Plan will enable all Americans to receive affordable, high quality healthcare.
4. Individual Ownership Through Tax Rebates and Health Vouchers. The Your Healthcare - Your Choice Plan will provide an individual with a $2,000 tax rebate and families with a $5,000 tax rebate for purchasing health insurance. Health vouchers in the same amount will be given to those who don't pay federal income tax.
5. Healthy Living Tax Credits. Offer tax credits to individuals whose healthcare costs do not exceed $1,000 per year and families whose healthcare expenditures are less than $3,000 per year.
6. Simple and Uniform Paperwork. Require all insurance companies to provide only one simple, standard application form and one simple, standard claim form per each type of service.
7. Physician Disclosure and Accountability. Require physicians to publish their fees to inform and educate patients prior to their treatment.
8. Penalties for Denial of Coverage by Insurance Companies. Make insurance coverage no longer an "if" by imposing stiff financial penalties on insurance companies who deny coverage as a result of pre-existing conditions.
9. Ending Frivolous Lawsuits. Establish Administrative Health Courts to reduce the tax burden of crowded state courts, lower healthcare fees and ensure a fair decision making process.
10. Eliminating Fraud and Waste in Medicare. Create a Medicare and Medicaid Fraud Task Force to eliminate the $60 billion that Medicare and Medicaid fraud costs seniors and taxpayers every year.
For the good of the Nation,
OLA
Todd Stroger and Dick Durbin – Two Tax and Spend Birds of a Feather
Steve Sauerberg, M.D. – “Cook County residents are paying the price for the career politicians’ failure to cut spending and balance their budgets.”
(Lombard, IL) – Today, Cook County residents buying clothes, furniture and alcohol, or paying the check at a restaurant, will face a higher tab than they would have yesterday. “Cook County residents are paying the price for the career politicians’ failure to cut spending and balance their budgets,” said U.S. Senate nominee Steve Sauerberg, M.D.
Cook County’s sales tax jumped 1 percentage point this morning reportedly to help offset the $3 billion shortfall in the budget. This is according to Cook County Board President Todd Stroger, who was endorsed by Senator Dick Durbin in 2006. The tax increase has made national headlines. As the highest taxed city in the country, those shopping in Chicago will now pay a sales tax of 10.25 percent.
“This tax hike makes Chicago the highest-taxed city in the country, and that is simply unacceptable,” said U.S. Senate nominee Steve Sauerberg, M.D. “At a time of increasing economic uncertainty, our elected leaders should be working to lessen the burden taxes place on hard-working families.”
“Unfortunately, tax and spend politicians like Todd Stroger and Dick Durbin don’t get it,” continued Sauerberg. “If Dick Durbin gets his way, the tax relief currently enjoyed by Illinois residents will be eliminated – adding, on average, an additional $2,000 to the tax bill of Illinois families.”
“Dick Durbin has no clue what it means to live within your means and to take responsibility. Instead of passing the buck on to taxpayers, politicians like Dick Durbin and Todd Stroger ought to be finding ways to eliminate waste and fraud from government. When I am representing Illinois in the U.S. Senate, I will never vote to raise your taxes,” concluded Sauerberg.
Sadly, the way you're written things on this thread, it seems that things are exactly the same as they were in the primary campaign and it's buisness as usual at the Sauerberg campaign.
During the primary season, Dr. Sauerberg refused to answer questions about where he stood on various issues, and just answered with meaningless soundbites like "I'm pro-mom and pro-baby". Whenever possible, his campaign would change the subject to Dick Durbin and talk about how bad Durbin's record is (as if rank-and-file Republicans like myself needed to be convinced Durbin is a bad Senator), and not discuss Dr. Sauerberg's own views and how HE would govern differently.
Phil Collins asked you to name four specific issues where Sauerberg squaredly agreed with the conservative base. You offered two, and gave us vague soundbites instead of specific policy positions.
If Dr. Sauerberg is pro-life, why has Illinois Right to Life pointedly refused to endorse his campaign thus far? They supported Mike Psak in the primary. Does Dr. Sauerberg support a constitutional amendment to overturn Roe v. Wade? He refused to say so in Feb., and appears to continue to dodge the subject. Our 2002 U.S. Senate nominee, Jim Durkin, made it clear he supported the human life amendment.
On marriage, Sauerberg saying he believes marriage is "between a man and a woman", is little different than what most liberal Democrats will say when they are trying to win over swing voters. For instance, John Kerry would continually insist he "believed marriage was between a man and a woman", even though he supported legalizing gay unions and giving them the exact same status as hetrosexual marriage (without calling it a "marriage") and pointedly refused to endorse legislation to limit marriage between a man and a woman (even though he "personally" agreed with it, he didn't "the federal government" should tell people who they can marry) What is Dr. Sauerberg's specific positions on the federal marriage protection amendment and issusing gay "civil unions" licenses with full marriage benefits? Dick Durbin himself believes marriage is "between a man and a woman" too.
Imagine if Abraham Lincoln spent his entire campaign refusing to tell people what he would do about the slavery question and just repeated endless soundbites about how Stephen Douglas is an awful Senator and we need to get of him. Think that would work?
You've spent this entire thread avoiding saying anything about Dr. Sauerberg's positions until Phil and I called you on it, which shows me Sauerberg's supporters want to continue running on "he's not Dick Durbin, he's not Dick Durbin, and he has a medical degree", incessantly, just as John Kerry ran on "I'm not George Bush, I'm not George Bush, and by the way I served in Vietnam". It didn't work for Kerry and it won't work for Steve.
Why would I volunteer for a candidate who refuses to level with the voters and tell people how he'll govern, and relies on surrogates like you to "assure" people with vague soundbites? George Ryan's "people" assured us he was "pro-life" in 1998 (even though George wouldn't lift a finger during the campaign to do so) and we all know how THAT turned out.
If Dr. Sauerberg wants to show he has truly changed from the primary and is prepared to tell us how HE will govern, I will listen. Until then, I don't care about how much you guys whine about Durbin because I have no intentions of voting for Durbin and there will be multiple choices on the ballot besides Dr. Sauerberg.
Greetings BillyBoy:
Heard your message loud and clear; this campaign does not need patronizing affirmations about how bad Durbin is. And thank you for pointing out my writing style bias. Guess it shows that after the July 2005 knife in the back of my troops, I’m thoroughly disgusted with the Senior Senator from Illinois.
You may call me a surrogate, I prefer volunteer. Campaign volunteers cast the first election vote... with their feet.
Being leery of the wholesale redefinition of family and marriage by a RINO previously running for Governor, I wanted to know. So why I asked the campaign where it stood on marriage. And got a straight forward, one man one woman answer. That’s why I took the campaign to Free Republic.
Does Illinois Right to Life support Dr. Sauerberg? That is an excellent question, I’ll ask my point of contact at the Sauerberg for Senate office for an explanation. And ask IRTF for their side too. Trust, but verify. And report the responses tomorrow.
So what specific about civil unions, or any other burning issues, should I ask? Because as a conservative the bottom line is: We desire candidates we can vote FOR, not AGAINST.
Your thoughts, comments, and criticisms are appreciated,
OLA
Your post #27 seems to be the fisrt geninue post discussing your own thoughts, all the earlier ones seem to be scripted "talking points" stuff the Sauerberg camp gives their volunteers to say. For instance, you claim all the endless "let's talk about Durbin instead and how we should volunteer for Steve to defeat him" posts are from your own personal frustration with Senator Durbin, but I've observed this a long-time stragedy of the Sauerberg camp to change the subject to Durbin and not talk about their own candidate.
For example, on post #25 you responded about "Steve's" position on taxes, but the press release from the Sauerberg camp says nothing about Dr. Sauerberg's position on taxes until the very last sentence. The rest of it simply points out Durbin's record on taxes.
Compare to this to Bobby Jindal's successful campaign to unseat Gov. Blanco last year. Almost none of it was "Blanco is the worst Governor ever, we cannot afford four more years of Blanco, Bobby Jindal is running to defeat Blanco" (though she certainly deserved criticism for screwing up the state after Hurricane Katrina), but rather 90% of the focus was on what a great resume Bobby Jindal had and what he would do to clean up corruption in Louisiana.
I agree Durbin needs to be exposed as the far-left kook he is, but Republicans are already aware of what an anti-american socialist Durbin is. The purpose of the primary campaign is supposed to be on WHICH Republican would be the STRONGEST person we could run against Durbin. Dr. Sauerberg never made any effort to argue WHY Republicans should pick HIM to be the guy, he just pretended he was the ONLY Republican primary running and issued endless press releases telling me what I already knew about Durbin.
You make the case that Obama was "selected not elected", I could easily make the same case by following Sauerberg's actions in the primary. He did win the "popular vote", but it was madely due to the party leaders proping up his campaign for him and fooling GOP voters into thinking Sauerberg was the only Republican running.
You state that you would not volunteer for a candidate unless they were solidly pro-life and that Dr. Sauerberg's son assured you that he was. If you are sincere, I assume you were either mislead by Dr. Sauerberg's efforts to use pro-life "I'm pro-baby" sounding rhetoric in front of pro-life audiences (which is no different than what Durbin did in 1996) or you are exaggerating his credentials. I would describe Dr. Sauerberg's position as mildly pro-choice but reluntant to admit it for fear of backlash from the GOP base. People who researched him in the primary (since he refused to specify exactly what limits he'd support putting on abortion), came to the conclusion that Dr. Sauerberg would oppose a few forms of abortion but for the most part, support the status quo on abortion, meaningless rhetoric about "working to promite adoption" aside. Bear in mind that slavery wasn't ended in this country becaue they "worked to promite alternates to slavery" and changed the "hearts and minds" of slave owners in the deep south. It was ended by politicians outlawing it.
Personally, I wouldn't mind volunteering for a candidate who is HONEST about being "mildly pro-choice" on abortion but agrees with me on the other 90% of the issues (like General Borling in the 2004 primary), but I have real problems with volunteering for a candidate who says "I personally think abortion is wrong, my family volunteers to help limit abortions, I'm pro-baby", even though they intend to govern to allow unlimited access to 90% of abortions (like Dick Durbin in 1996)
In any case, assuming you are making a sincere attempt to show Sauerberg is now reaching out to the conservative base and is not a RINO, here are some policy positions where he could earn my vote and prove he will govern differently than Durbin would:
===================================================
1) During the primary season, Why did Dr. Sauerberg's campaign constantly refer to him as "THE Republican Candidate for U.S. Senate" and ignore any joint events with his primary opponents in February, as if he (a first time candidate nobody ever heard of) was already the nominee and didn't need the votes of the conservative grassroots because he had the endorsements of the "modreate" party bosses? Many of us found his campaign to be as cocky and arrogant as Durbin in this regard. Since Sauerberg claims he has now "fired those guys" who "advised" him not to bother showing up at campaign events in Feb., what he do differently to reach out to the 40% of Republicans who voted for Mike Psak or Andy Martin in the primary? The fact that it's summer and staunch Republicans like myself are still wary of him doesn't speak well for his chances of "uniting" the party.
2) What is Dr. Sauerberg's stance on the current income tax system in the U.S. and if he dislikes it, what policy proposals does he have or support to change it? Would he vote for the Fair Tax or a Steve Forbes style "flat tax", and which one does he prefer and why? Please, I'd like a direct answer and not a five paragraph reply from his campaign talking about how bad Durbin's record is on taxes.
3) You say Dr. Sauerberg's solution to change abortion laws is to vote for "strict constructionist" judges appointed by Republicans. I would argue that these so-called "strict constructionist" judges appointed by Republican presidents are what got us Roe v. Wade in the first place. 7 out of 9 of the current judges on the court were Republican appointees, and the Nixon judges who handed down the Roe v. Wade were all billed as "strict constructionsts" (as was currently leftist Supreme Court judge David Souter) Furthermore, far-left pro-abortion Supreme Court judges like Ruth Bader Ginsburg were confirmed 97-3 with most Republican Senators rubber stamping them. Is Dr. Sauerberg willing to pledge that he WON'T vote in favor of any far-left pro-abortion Obama appointees, and if not, how would having him as Senator in an Obama presidency be any different than Durbin? What specific pro-life legislation (name sample bills like partial-birth abortion ban) would Dr. Sauerberg vote for that Durbin will not? Bear in mind that Dick Durbin's people used to try to sell him as a "pro-life" candidate too, without going into specifics about what legislation Durbin supported.
4) How does Dr. Sauerberg feel about the President's proposal to open up 0.2% of ANWR to drilling in Alaska? Will he make a public pledge to support this legislation?
5) On trade relations, what is Dr. Sauerberg's position on free trade with communiation nations? Will he vote to continue the embargo against Cuba? Does he support Permanant Normal Trade Relations/Most Favored Nation status with Communist China? Does he support full recognition of China in the international community while exclusing Taiwan?
6) Does Dr. Sauerberg support the federal marriage protection amendment and will he pledge to oppose legislation granting "civil unions" and "domestic partnership" licenses to gay couples that grant them the exact same status as "marriage" without using the word "marriage"? If not, how is he any different from John Kerry in his defintion of "beliving marriage is between a man and a woman"
7) Does Dr. Sauerberg support making the President's tax cuts permanant? Will he pledge to do so? (as opposed to just saying he "thinks" it might be a good idea)
8) Does Dr. Sauerberg support the recent Supreme Court decision on guns and allowing people the right to own guns in Washington D.C.?
9) Dr. Sauerberg notes that he opposes "amnesty for illegal aliens". John McCain claimed he did too, then sponcered an amnesty bill and claimed it didn't "count" as amnesty because it required illegal aliens to pay a fine (which is like saying if I break into a store and steal all their goods, it's not really stealing if the police tell me to a pay a $50 fine and say sorry, and then erase all records of my crime). Would Dr. Sauerberg support a McCain style "path to citizenship/not really amnesty" legislation that would allow illegal aliens to stay in the country indefinitely if they agree to pay a fine, submit to a background check, say they're sorry, etc., or does he rule out any legislation that will allow illegal aliens to stay in the U.S. legally while the borders are not secured?
10) Government has grown enormously out of control under "Republican" rule during the 2000s, and that's why Republicans lost control of Congress. Can Dr. Sauerberg cite specific federal programs, agencies, or spending areas he would like to cut down or eliminate all together to get the budget back on track? Also, does he support a constitutional amendment to have a line-item veto, as well as a balenced budget amendment?
Greetings BillyBoy:
Yes, #27 is where I depart from campaign script. Wow. Guess I missed quite a primary.
Ten excellent questions which need an answer. We’ll see how frank the campaign office gets. Needless to say, it seemed quite odd Republicans were not rallying around the candidate. Now I’m wiser. Thank you for the insight.
For the Nation,
OLA
Why did you say, “Guess I missed quite a primary.”? Did you vote in that election? I volunteered for Mike Psak, the only conservative, in the race. He was endorsed by the Illinois Federation for Right to Life, the Illinois Minutemen Project, and the Illinois Center Right Coalition. He was also the only pro-gun candidate, in that race.
Good Morning PhilCollins:
I was on active duty, out of touch with Illinois news. My Presidential favorite, Duncan Hunter, was already out of the race. As an uninformed primary voter, I didn’t request an absentee ballot.
Cheers,
OLA
Thanks. www.psak4ussenate.com is no longer active. But I just read about Mike Psak, he would have been very interesting member of the US Senate. Frankly, I had not read Mike Psak’s name until yesterday. Does Mike have future plans, such as holding a local office?
Cheers,
OLA
Yes, Mike says that, in 2010, he’ll probably run for IL treasurer or comptroller. He has an MBA, so he thinks that he could help the state government’s budget. He can’t win a local office, since he lives in downtown Chicago, where only liberals can win.
Good Afternoon PhilCollins:
LOL. Maybe the new 10.25% sales tax might convert a few more liberals into conservatives?
Cheers,
OLA
Yes, a few Cook Co. Democrats will probably become Republicans this year. Many people, in the Chicago area, are mad at the Cook Co. Board because they increased the county sales tax rate from 0.75% to 1.75%. The state sales tax rate is 6.25%, so everyone who is mad at the county board should be more mad at the state legislators who voted for the latest state sales tax rate increase, in 2005.
Figured I'd check in at the end of the day to learn your progress. Did you speak to anyone at the Sauerberg campaign office today and try to get a responce about Dr. Sauerberg's positions on those specific items?
I'm guessing you made an attempt and experienced much of the frustration we experienced during the primary campaign. Dr. Sauerberg's inner circle seems extremely reluntant to have their candidate go on record on any specific legislation and will only speak in very generic platitudes like "Dr. Sauerberg thinks higher taxes are bad" and "we need to rely on less foriegn oil" that all voters will agree with. If I'm mistaken and Dr. Sauerberg has taken a position on things like ANWR, please let me know.
I agree with Ronald Reagan that a candidate who is with me 80% of the time is not my enemy. But what is the 80% where Sauerberg and I agree? He has not yet communicated any part of the 80%. He only communicates that he is against Durbin. That is his problem.
If you were a Duncan Hunter supporter and believe in only volunteering for candidates who are "solidly pro-life", I believe you may have been mislead by the Sauerberg campaign. Although he is certainly not as liberal as Dick Durbin, I haven't found Dr. Sauerberg to be "solid" on any issue of importance to conservatives. He is moderate at best.
::crickets chirp::
Greetings BillyBoy:
Sorry for the delay. The following is the campaign response to my written inquiry, “[ ]” is edited for clarity.
OLA
—
We are super busy the next four days working on pulling off the parades that we are going to be attending, so I am forced to keep this brief. After looking at a dozen or so websites for political candidates I can comfortably say that sauerberg2008.com has more information on candidate stances than any other politicians (except Barack and McCain). If any disgruntled or curious Republican has questions about Steve’s positions they can call the office [630-424-3490] or attend one of the events he speaks at. There is always a Q&A session and all questions are fair game.
It would be great to have all the Psak supporters behind us, and the staff is going to try once again to get Mike on board. Some GOP insiders think he was a plant by Democrats to stir up trouble within the party. Nobody here really know[s] for sure. We would like to get his supporters behind us, and we are going to try to do so.
To answer these perceptions:
1.) The perception that Dr. Sauerberg, a first time candidate who nobody ever heard of, felt he was already the nominee.
- We went to nearly every township and county GOP meeting in the state (almost 90 counties) during the primary. Psak and Andy Martin [seemed to make little] effort to travel outside DuPage and Cook Counties. I personally spoke at more events in the primary and in more counties than both Martin and Psak combined. They just flat out didn’t work [as] hard. If Steve thought he was guaranteed to win the primary, he would not have spent hundreds of hours speaking from Cairo up to Rockford and East St. Louis to Kankakee.
2.) The perception Dr. Sauerberg, doesn’t want the help of the conservative grassroots because Dr. Sauerberg had the endorsements of the “moderate” party bosses.
- We absolutely want the support of conservative grassroots organizations. Many though, on both sides, have attempted to direct the campaign on policy. Some of these groups want to advise and not support. With the hundreds of grassroots organizations throughout the state, we don’t have the time to seek out and use opinions from everyone. Our new campaign manager has made an effort to reach out to the groups that we mishandled during the primary, and we are always looking for more support from conservative grassroots organizations. We want and need it.
3.) During the primary season, Dr. Sauerberg’s campaign seemed to ignore joint events with his primary opponents. Does this explain the new campaign manager?
- Our old campaign manager was pretty much convinced that Mike Psak was a Democratic plant, and he wanted to avoid him. [And] Andy Martin [being] openly anti-Semitic and even made racist comments towards Dr. Sauerberg (a German Lutheran) about how he was part of a sneaky Jewish conspiracy to undermine the Republican Party in Illinois. The old campaign manager determined that it was nothing but detrimental for the campaign to appear in public with these two men. Right or wrong that was the decision.
4.) Many found Dr. Sauerberg’s campaign being as cocky and arrogant as Durbin’s. Does this explain the new campaign manager?
- A change was made to the campaign manager position for a variety of reasons. Chris Hage, who started at the end of March, has done a wonderful job. I think disgruntled Republicans will really like the changes he has made. But if people still want to think the campaign is “cocky and arrogant” that is unfortunate. I hope these people speak or have spoken with us before passing [judgment].
Glad you see sent an update, at least the campaign's responce to question #1. I'd still like to know his policy responces on questions #2 - #9. I do not believe Dr. Sauerberg is a "solid conservative" at all and that he is merely duping conservatives like yourself into supporting him even though he intends to govern as Durbin lite. If Dr. Sauerberg can prove me wrong by showing he has committed to conservative legislation, he is welcome to let me know.
Yes, I do think a candidate and campaign who refer to their guy as "THE Republican Candidate for U.S. Senate" during the primary to be cocky and arrogant, and trying to send the message that he was already the nominee regardless of how Republicans vote. Quite frankly, I've never seen another Republican ever refer to themselves as "THE Republican Candidate" before they had won the nomination. It was on Sauerberg's website, literature, and press releases. McCain certainly didn't show up at candidate forums back in 2007 and say "Hi, I'm John McCain and I am the Republican candidate against Hillary, vote for me if you want to stop the Democrats" I noticed whoever responded to my inquiry didn't address Sauerberg's campaign using this particular phrase before they had the won the nomination. I do think it was a deliberate attempt to mislead Republican voters into thinking Sauerberg was the only alternative to Durbin.
Sauerberg's staff noting that Andy Martin had a history of making anti-semetic remarks is a valid point, though the accusation that Mike Psak was somehow a "Democrat plant" strikes me as bizarre. Mike Psak is a lifelong Republican with a record of voting in Republicans primaries (this can be verified by anyone who wants to look up voting data) to prove it. He's also a very loyal Republican precinct captain in Chicago who has spent countless hours volunteering for many, many Republican candidates over the years. Mike Psak is more conservative than Sauerberg and certainly has stronger credentials in Republican politics than a medical doctor from the private sector. You can see his myspace page at http://www.myspace.com/mikepsak. I agree with Sauerberg's campaign that Mike's campaign wasn't run very professionally, however.
Andy Martin (though not Mike Psak) made the opposite accusation, that he believes Sauerberg was recruited by our questionable party chairman (Andy McKenna, whose family has a history of donating to Democrats and to Durbin in particular), because he is personal friends with Durbin and doesn't want Durbin to have a "real" challenger, so he asked Sauerberg to be the "sacrifical lamb" and to lay low so that Durbin will have an easy ride to re-election. Though Martin's accusations may just be conspircy theory stuff, he certainly has more evidence to back it up than the "Psak is a Democrat plant" stuff, since Sauerberg deliberately avoided filling out conservative candidate survey's that would help solidify his base, and avoided meeting with other Republicans. And the fact is that Andy McKenna is well known as a combine guy, and I've never seen the party bosses endorse an unknown first time candidate before the primary. That is unpresidented. Why was McKenna so hellbent on making sure Sauerberg was the nominee? Both Psak and Sauerberg were first time candidates.
Bear in mind that Psak and Martin's combined numbers mean around 45% of Republican voters opposed Sauerberg for the nomination. Sauerberg needs every Republican vote he can get to beat Durbin and his "reformed" campaign should have working hard to get them aboard back in March. I don't see him doing anything to reach out to Mike Psak or Andy Martin, or try to placate any of their supporters (by constant, John McCain had a huge amount of Republicans who disliked him in the primary, but he's made decent efforts to placate everyone except the Ron Paul loons and he has cozied up with Romney and Huckabee many times after the primary)
Andy Martin even made the specific point in a press release that he attended a "unity dinner" after the 2006 governor primary and personsally endorsed the far more liberal Topinka -- because even though he personally couldn't stand her, he thought the primary process was "reasonably fair" and that she was the choice of Republican voters, and he would respect their decision. He specifically said he would NOT endorse Sauerberg in 2008 because the primary process was stacked by the party leadership in favor of Sauerberg, and that Sauerberg mislead voters to get nominated. I tend to agree. To this day, neither Psak or Martin has endorsed Sauerberg.
I don't think we conservative grassroot voters are trying to dictate to Sauerberg what his policy positions would be like. Like I said, Ronald Reagan belives a person who is with me 80% of the time is not my enemy. If Sauerberg disagrees with me on an issue or two, that is not a big deal. I don't want to tell him what stance to take, I just want to know what his policies are. It seems to us Sauerberg's campaign was deliberably giving voters the run around in the primary and avoiding taking a firm position on any issue. Responding to a question about the second amendment with "Dr. Sauerberg understands gun owners concerns because he owns a gun" is not an answer and comes across as a slap in the face to voters, whether intention or not. To this day, five monthes later, I still don't know in which cases Dr. Sauerberg would allow abortion. Rape and incest? First trimester? Second trimester? Third trimester? Physical health reasons? Mental Health Reasons? To my knowlege, the only form of abortion he has said he would vote against is partial birth abortion, which again, is a "safe" position to take because over 80% of public is against that.
So in the coming days, after the July 4th holiday is over, let's see if Sauerberg's camp responds to questions 2 - 9, and I will re-evalute if he is a staunch conservative. So far he just seems to be a more moderate version of Durbin.
"Quite frankly, I've never seen another Republican ever refer to themselves as "THE Republican Candidate" before they had won the nomination."
Once, I did see something simualar to that a long while back, a decade ago. In 1998, George Ryan's campaign signs and literature used the logo and phrase " GEORGE RYAN ~ GOVERNOR | CORRINE WOOD ~ LT. GOVERNOR" before anyone had voted for them for those positions. It didn't say "George Ryan for George", It said "GEORGE RYAN" with big bold letters signifying "GOVERNOR" next to it, as if that was his title already. His literature would talk about "Welcome message from George H. Ryan, Governor, Illinois"
But I think the fact Sauerberg used the same tactics as the George Ryan camp just makes things look worse for him.
Greeting BillyBoy:
Needless to say, your points were spot on. Additional FReepmail questions were added to your own questions. Good thing I was wearing my trusty Nomex underwear. :)
Neal Sauerberg answered the four “perception” questions.
It took nearly one day just to compile all the questions, eliminate duplicates, reword similar questions to ask one concise question, vet flame bait, and eliminate questions which the website concisely answers. The most often asked question concerned the ambiguous abortion stance.
I’m anxious to see the campaign response too.
Cheers,
OLA
Greetings BillyBoy:
BTW, would you kindly point me to where one finds a person’s voting history. Especially with the charge made against Mike Psak. This has me curious, given in my own personal “Operation Chaos 1992;” I pulled a democRat ballot to vote AGAINST Slick Willie. I wonder how the “GOP insiders” might view me.
Cheers,
OLA
Hey OLA,
Individuals don’t have access to Illinois voter database records, but it’s easy to get permission to log into the system if you are with a political campaign. Anyone from the Sauerberg campaign could have checked whether Mike Psak pulled a Republican or Democrat ballot in past primaries by signing a permission form from the Chicago Republican Party and getting a username and password to sign onto the Cook County voter database website, and checking who voted in the 42nd Ward. I did so myself when I was a volunteer for the Huckabee campaign to find hard core conservative primary voters in my township. Just contact Republican organziations in Illinois and let them know you’re a volunteer for so-and-so Republican and they will send you a form.
I suggest you contact both Mike Psak and Andy Martin to get their side of the story, and then compare to it Neal Sauerberg’s side of the story. Mike and Andy will tell you very disturbing personal stories about Steve Sauerberg that cannot be repeated here. Remember, they were both eager to beat Durbin and spent many monthes meeting with volunteers and voters in all three campaigns. Needless to say, both adamently believe Sauerberg is a RINO and I think after hearing what evidence they give for it, you will be reluntant to support him too.
Also, take into account that even though John McCain is well known as a maverick and burned bridges with conservatives in the past, every single one of his primary opponents has now endorsed his candidacy (even though Tancredo and Hunter did so reluntantly), with the exception of Ron Paul (who says will he only back anti-war Republicans)
ABOUT ANDY MARTIN’S CAMPAIGN
ILLINOIS U. S. SENATE CANDIDATE ANDY MARTIN SAYS OPPONENT IS ‘SLIPPERY STEVE’
http://www.andyforussenator.com/community/Home/tabid/36/mid/374/newsid374/3/Default.aspx
Illinois Republican reformer Andy Martin will not support McKenna and Sauerberg
http://andyforussenator.wordpress.com/2008/02/
Andy’s cell: (917) 664-9329
Andy’s e-mail: AndyMart20@aol.com
ABOUT MIKE PSAK’S CAMPAIGN
Mike Psak – Send Common Sense to Washington
http://amcon.proboards99.com/index.cgi?board=repubs&action=display&thread=23
Mike’s GOP credentials
Family-PAC Illinois, member since 2003
National Rifle Association, member since 2005
Illinois Forum, Member since 2005
Republican Young Professionals (Illinois), members since 2001
Illinois Center Right Coalition, Steering Committee member since 2007
Simmons for Republican Committeeman, 42nd Ward of Chicago - Deputy Campaign Manager 2003-2004
Dues paying member, 42nd Ward Repuiblican Organization (Chicago, IL)
42nd Ward Republicans - Office Manager, Republican Election Judge, Republican Poll Watcher, Republican Precinct Captain
Host Committee: Donald Rumsfeld Reception, Chicago Republicans Boat Cruise
Mike’s cell: (312) 933-1924
Mike’s email: mjpsak@aol.com
Well, tomarrow will be 10 days since I posted an inquiry about where the campaign stands on issues of importance to conservatives, and I haven't heard a peep since then, not even a private freepmail from on you with any news you heard from the campaign.
I'm a lifelong Republican and have been campaigning for Republican officials for the last decade, so you'd THINK Sauerberg's campaign would go out all-out to get people like me on board, since all he has to do is act like a real Republican to earn my support. Instead, I got two unsolicting fundraising letters from him during the primary (where he referred to himself as "THE Republican candidate against Durbin" before anyone had cast their votes) and that was it.
Do you realize now why PhilCollins, me, and many other grassroots conservatives threw out hands up in the air and gave up on this guy monthes ago? What's going on now is exactly what went on in the primary. Republican voters would ask Sauerberg where he stands on a specific piece of legislation, they'd get a reply back talking about Dick Durbin, they'd repeat the original question, then'd get a reply back saying the campaign would like to answer their question but is "very busy this time of year and will follow up as soon as possible", they'd wait several weeks, inquire again, and then they'd get a non-answer answer that insults the voter's intelligence like "Thanks your question. Rest assured, Steve shares your concerns about taxes. Republicans can trust Steve on taxes because he understands that taxes are too high right now"
What "changes" has he made to the campaign since then? Looks like the same old stragedy since then.
Phil Collins alledged that Sauerberg was pro-abortion and pro-gun control, and you disagreed, saying he is "solidly pro-life" and "wants to enforce existing gun laws, not make new ones". I disagree, and since the campaign hadn't provided any evidence to support your position, I'd like to post past evidence that Phil is correct.
===================================================
STEVE SAUERBERG ON THE ISSUES
PRO-GUN CONTROL
"He would SUPPORT an assault weapons ban if it's properly crafted."
SOURCE: http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=11341
Andy Martin calls his opponent, "Gun control Sauerberg"
[Primary challenger Andy] Martin noted that that after he challenged Sauerberg on Sauerberg's plan for more gun control, Sauerberg did not deny the accusation. "It was surreal", says Martin. 'I got up in front of a bunch of gun owners and told them Sauerberg wanted ‘a little' more gun control and Sauerberg did not deny the accusation".
SOURCE: http://www.pr-inside.com/wealthy-illinois-doctor-steve-sauerberg-wants-r359674.htm
PRO-ABORTION
“He thinks women should be ALLOWED to get abortions under certain circumstances. He declined to say what those circumstances are, however.”
SOURCE: http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=11341
Friday, January 25, 2008
Sauerberg: "I Have Qualms..." about overturning Roe v. Wade.
This past week, on the anniversary of the Roe decision the Republican Candidates for the U.S. Senate all attended a forum sponsored by the Illinois Family Institute, which has made audio from the event available. Be sure to listen to Steve Sauerberg talk about his "qualms" about overturning Roe, and Andy Martin's defense of the status quo, and hear Mike Psak be the only candidate to come out in favor of not only overturning Roe, but also cutting off federal funding for any organization that provides abortion services.
I was right the first time. There is only one truly pro-life candidate for the U.S. Senate in Illinois: Mike Psak.
SOURCE: http://regularthoughts.blogspot.com/2008/01/sauerberg-i-have-qualms.html
SOURCE: http://www.illinoisfamily.org/news/contentview.asp?c=33719
ACTIVIST JUDGES
PRIMARY CAMPIAGN INTERVIEW -
Jeff Berkowitz: As a senator, you are going to have a choice in confirmation of judges. Would you have a litmus test? Would it matter to you whether the judge [wannabe] wanted to overturn Roe v. Wade or the judge [wannabe] supported Roe v. Wade?
Dr. Steve Sauerberg: I don’t think it is appropriate to have a litmus test
Jeff Berkowitz: Including that. So, you could see yourself—
Dr. Steve Sauerberg: Including that. That’s just not appropriate. That’s not the way judges should be chosen.
Jeff Berkowitz: So, you could see yourself confirming for the Supreme Court a judge who is AVOWEDLY pro-Choice?
Dr. Steve Sauerberg: It could happen.
SOURCE: http://jeffberkowitz.blogspot.com/2007/08/could-sauerberg-beat-durbin-cable-and.html
"PERSONALLY" OPPOSES GAY MARRIAGE, BUT...
"While he defines marriage as between a man and woman, he DOESN’T think a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is necessary.
SOURCE: http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=11341
Conservatives steam over Sauerberg staffer IL GOP candidate for U.S. Senate Steve Sauerberg stunned social conservatives last week when he announced the addition of a HOMOSEXUAL RIGHTS ACTIVIST AS HIS CAMPAIGN’S NEW PRESS SECRETARY. Christopher Barron, 36, was the point man for the Log Cabin Republicans in their 2004 campaign against President George W. Bush's effort to add a federal marriage protection amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
After discussion about the revelation broke out last week on Illinois Review (see "Sauerberg: Personnel is Policy"), state pro-family leaders -- including talk show host Sandy Rios and national activist Peter LaBarbera -- voiced outrage Monday on the air over Sauerberg's apparent political snub.
"It is inconceivable that Steve Sauerberg would so needlessly alienate the pro-family conservative base in Illinois by hiring a veteran homosexual activist for his campaign," said Peter LaBarbera, founder of Republicans For Family Values (www.rffv.org).
Within weeks of President Bush's amendment announcement in 2004, Barron and the Log Cabin Republicans launched its first ever $1 million ad campaign criticizing the president's effort and ultimately withheld endorsing Bush in his 2004 presidential re-election bid.
The LCR ad was designed to embarrass Bush by purposely pitting the President's position in support of the marriage amendment directly against his VP Dick Cheney's 2000 debate comments.
LCR protest ads ran in home states of Republicans who sponsored the effort in Congress. As the group's political director, Barron was quoted widely in the national media during the heat of the federal marriage debate.
In a May 11, 2004 Rocky Mountain News story, Sauerberg's now-press secretary Barron told reporter Peggy Lowe about the LCRs' determination to make two Colorado lawmakers "regret" their federal efforts to protect traditional marriage
SOURCE: http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2008/03/conservatives-1.html
PRO-TREE HUGGING WITH TAXPAYER'S MONEY
FROM THE SAUERBERG 2008 WEBSITE -
• Fully fund federal programs geared toward protecting our environment.
• Increase fuel economy standards on cars and trucks.
• Enhance our nation's rail capacity. Trains are the most efficient means of transporting large amounts of manufactured goods, and the railroad industry has a proven safety record. In fact, trains are three times more fuel efficient than over-the-road trucks.
SOURCE: http://www.sauerberg2008.com/stand-enviro.aspx
PRO-FREE TRADE WITH COMMUNIST NATIONS
He supports free trade with China , although he recognizes that trading partners have to be “reasonable.” He noted that China’s Gross National Product is less at the present time than the U.S.’s increase.
SOURCE: http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:w34cL8tkVDQJ:www.taprootgop.org
"UNDECIDED" ON MINIMUM WAGE
PRIMARY CAMPAIGN POSITION:
" Sauerberg said he doesn't know how he would have voted on the federal minimum wage increase Durbin supported"
SOURCE: http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=11341
===============================================
Bottom line: If you don't support RINOs, I don't think you can support Steve Sauerberg. Aside from the generic conservative-sounding rhetoric he uses to get people like you aboard like "I'm pro-baby" and "marriage is between a man a woman", there is no evidence he will actually GOVERN that way. A quick look at his ACTUAL policies reveals he is HIDING how he will actually vote on legislation, and anytime he does let his real feelings slip, his position is little more than Durbin-lite. How is Steve Sauerberg chatting about working in "crisis pregnancy centers" and personally disliking abortion (even though he won't overturn Roe v. Wade and is fine with "avowedly" pro-abortion judges") any different than Durbin being "a devout Catholic and morally opposed to abortion" in 1996?
Don't take my word for it, ask other Republicans who ran into Steve Sauerberg and his campaign the last couple of monthes. Ask his primary opponents how they feel about Steve, compare it what Neal Sauerberg has to say about dad, and make your own judgement who's being truthful.
If you are looking for a real conservative, I humbly suggest you consider supporting Chad Koppie for U.S. Senate. Unlike Dr. Sauerberg and Dick Durbin, Chad actually is pro-life, pro-gun, pro-family, and pro-lower taxes and less government, and has the credentials to prove it. 10 years ago, he ran against another alledged "pro-life, pro-family conservative Republican" named George Ryan, and warned that Ryan was a wolf in sheep's clothing. He was right then, and it seems he's right now
I agree with everything Bill said. I circulated Chad’s petition, and I’ll probably vote for him, since he’s the only conservative, in that race.
Good Afternoon BillyBoy & PhilCollins:
Regretfully the Sauerberg campaign has not provided answers for the questions.
Friday morning, Dr. Sauerberg is scheduled to address the Illinois American Legion Convention; we’ll see if his speech brings clarity to the collection of ambiguous stands. Plus, he is supposed to take questions from the audience.
Too bad I didn’t know about Mr. Chad Koppie earlier, he also would have been invited to address the Legionnaires.
Earlier this week, I spent about an hour speaking with Mike Psak. Thank you for providing me with Mike Psak contact information.
Cheers,
OLA
What I did get from the campaign.
—
July 9, 2008
Contact: Chris Barron
Office - (630) 424-3490
Cell - (630) 215-9118 or (202) 297-9807
cbarron@sauerberg2008.com
Sauerberg congratulates Durbin on seeing the light
“We can’t drill our way to lower gas prices.” - Senator Durbin, in May
Steve Sauerberg, M.D. - “I would like to congratulate Senator Dick Durbin on his recent conversion to faith in the laws of supply and demand.”
(Lombard, IL) - Today, Republican nominee for U.S. Senate Dr. Steve Sauerberg commended Senator Dick Durbin for seeing the light that leads the way to lower gas prices for hard-working Illinois families. “I’m open to drilling and responsible production,” Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin told The Wall Street Journal, adding that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid could also support the move.
“I would like to congratulate Senator Dick Durbin on his recent conversion to faith in the laws of supply and demand,” Sauerberg said. “Clearly, he has realized his previous belief we could not ‘drill our way to lower gas prices’ was incorrect.”
Sauerberg Campaign Manager Chris Hage noted that this is only the most recent example of Dick Durbin’s long, proud tradition of flip-flopping on issues when it is politically expedient. “As a downstate congressman, Durbin was against abortion before he was for it,” Hage said. “He supported free trade before he opposed it. And he heartily endorsed Todd Stroger and Rod Blagojevich before he ran away from them. In the words of Forrest Gump, Dick Durbin is like a box of chocolates; you never know what you’re gonna get.”
“I can assure you that when I am serving as Illinois’ next senator, I will stand by the positions I believe in, and act on behalf of the interests of the residents of Illinois,” Sauerberg said. “I will not allow special interests or election-year politics to persuade my convictions.”
# # #
Sauerberg for U.S. Senate - P.O. Box 667 Lombard, IL 60148. For more information on Steve’s campaign please visit our website at www.sauerberg2008.com
Neal Sauerberg is right that it's not my place to tell Steve how to run his campaign, but he's polling terrible now and if he thinks incessantly saying "I'm not Dick Durbin" until November will elect him, that's unfortunate.
As for Chris Hage saying "In the words of Forrest Gump, Dick Durbin is like a box of chocolates; you never know what you’re gonna get", I politely suggest the same is true of the guy he's working for. Sauerberg tells Republican voters one thing (I'm pro-baby and against pro-abortion judges) and the liberal media another thing (I'm for abortion in some circumstances and would confirm hard-core pro-abortion judges). If he hates Durbin so much, why is using Durbin's 1996 campaign stragedy?
As to Chad Koppie...
Chad doesn't have an email yet, and I'm hoping he will have a campaign site up soon. He surprised everyone here because most people thought Chad wouldn't make it on the ballot this time, but nobody challenged Chad so now he will be on the ballot statewide in November. Of all the candidates I've meet for U.S. Senate, Chad certainly comes across as having the most "senatoral" demenaor, certainly moreso than Dr. Sauerberg, Mike Psak, Andy Martin, and certainly more than our smug blowhard incumbant Senator Durbin. Chad always seems to speak in very calm, thought-provoking, intelligence answers to questions about where he stands on the issues. I think when you talk to him over the phone, you'll agree, and also find he is a REAL solid conservative and not afraid to admit it.
Chad can be reached by phone at (847)426-3883, (847) 431-3882) or (847) 426-7449 (I think one of those numbers might be his personal fax machine but I can't remember which)
I believe his campaign manager is Gary Dunlap (chairman of the Illinois Constitution P), Gary can be reached at (630) 333-7869
I’m a member of the Republican Assembly of Lake County, and, during last night’s meeting, the guest speaker was Dr. Sauerberg. He said that Sen. Durbin wants to give amnesty to all illegal aliens and that he disagrees with Durbin. Sauerberg didn’t give any more details about his immigration views. Someone asked him whether he would support a bill which states that all human life, including the unborn, is sacred and should be protected. He thought about it for about 10 seconds and said, “I guess, yeah.” After he left, a member said that he can’t happily help a candidate who isn’t solidly pro-life. I reminded the members that, before the primary, the Illinois Federation for Right to Life endorsed Mike Psak. I said that, before the primary, Sauerberg was pro-choice and that, now, he’s pro-life. He explained how he wants to change the health care system. I don’t remember all of the details, and I think that he wants to force the doctors and insurance companies to do things, and I think that is what a liberal would do.
Someone asked who his Lake Co. coordinator is. Sauerberg said, “Eric something. I don’t know his name. I’ll find out.” He said that 7% of the vote will come from Lake Co. and that it’s an important county.
The Sauerberg campaign hasn’t been perfect, but they have definitely worked hard to address policy issues, rather than just being “not Durbin”, in their latest webpage: http://www.moveondickdurbin.org/compare.asp.
It doesn’t have every issue and doesn’t go into full details on all, but it seems to have a strong, clear stance on major issues. I give them credit for coming out with so much information since most politicians are too afraid to be clear on their stances to avoid being held to something. Just look at Durbin and Obama’s constant flip flopping.
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.