Sauerberg backs down when forced to confront Durbin

* Way back in April, Republican US Senate candidate Steve Sauerberg laid out his battle plan against incumbent Democrat Dick Durbin…

“You win by showing the people of Illinois who Dick Durbin really is,” [Sauerberg] said. “He is a divisive, partisan politician who has spent 37 years on the government dole.”

* In that same interview, Sauerberg also revealed why he initially decided to run against Durbin…

Sauerberg said he first considered running after Durbin compared the alleged abuse of Iraqi prisoners to atrocities committed in Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia and Cambodia.

“When he compared our troops to Nazis, that pretty much put me over the top,” he said.

Durbin profusely apologized for the remark, but Sauerberg was having nothing of it. His press releases throughout the summer have been some of the most vitriolic I’ve ever seen.

* Sauerberg was therefore furious with Durbin’s first TV ad of the season, which highlights the incumbent’s work on behalf of disabled military veterans…

Today, Republican Senate nominee Steve Sauerberg, M.D., sharply criticized Senator Dick Durbin for a new television ad running as part of the Senator’s campaign for re-election. “Dick Durbin, who has been unwilling to stand up for our brave men and women in uniform in his role as a United States Senator, has stooped to shamelessly exploiting our troops for his own political gain,” said Sauerberg. “This is cynical election-year politics at its worst.”

“Time and time again Dick Durbin has failed to stand up for our troops. It’s incredible that Dick Durbin, the same man who compared our troops to Nazis on the floor of the U.S. Senate, pronounced the surge a failure before it began, and would not denounce the slandering of General Petraeus, would now attempt to use our troops as election-year gimmicks,” continued Sauerberg. “One slickly crafted campaign commercial cannot make up for a life-time of failing our men and women in uniform.”

* Yesterday, Durbin had a chance to confront Sauerberg about his attacks during a Chicago Tribune editorial meeting. After months and months of going on the offensive, Sauerberg backed off…

Republican U.S. Senate challenger Steve Sauerberg backtracked Tuesday from questioning Sen. Dick Durbin’s patriotism after the Democrat emotionally accused his rival of employing “the lowest form of politics.” […]

“I apologize if you’re upset with me and I understand, but the fact of the matter is, you shouldn’t say these things,” Sauerberg said. “People are hurt. They’re still hurt.” The Republican said every veteran he has spoken with holds Durbin “in great disdain.”

“You need to meet more veterans,” Durbin said, pointing out he recently received the endorsement of the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

That’s a sharp, spot-on retort by Durbin. The VFW isn’t in the habit of endorsing troop-hating, terrorist-loving commies.

Sauerberg acknowledged that Durbin has “done a great job on some of these issues” dealing with veterans. And Sauerberg said a news release issued Monday by his campaign, criticizing Durbin for “shamelessly exploiting our troops for his own political gain” in a campaign TV ad was “a little bit too strong. I think I might take that one back a little bit.”

“I do applaud your efforts on behalf of the troops,” Sauerberg said. And after their editorial board session ended, Sauerberg shook Durbin’s hand and said, “I apologize for any offense.”

Candidates who don’t have the guts to back up their assaults when their opponents are in the same room deserve whatever ridicule results. In Sauerberg’s case, however, he manned up and apologized. We’ll see if his campaign follows suit.

>> Steve Sauerberg is an excellent candidate for the U.S. Senate who is right on all conservative issues.He is pro-life, pro-gun and his health care reform plan is visionary. <<

He is? Reminds me of the Republicans who claimed George Ryan was a "warm, pragmatic, conservative" GOP official. They must have meet another guy named "George Ryan" because the one who governed Illinois was anything but. Have you found another guy named "Steve Sauerberg" who stands up for gun rights and the unborn? Because the current RINO the GOP selected won't be caught dead doing that.

I posted several threads showing where Sauerberg stands on these issues, in his own words. ::sigh:: Let's repeat it again:

Sauerberg on abortion: NO POSITION LISTED ON WEBSITE. Often describes himself, ala Arnold Schwarzenegger, as a "fiscal conservative” on economics and a ”moderate" on social issues (Illinois Channel). He told the Daily Herald he thinks woman should be ALLOWED to get abortions in “certain circumstances”, (but wouldn’t clarify what circumstances they were). At the Illinois Family Institute candidate forum, Sauerberg stated that he has “qualms” about overturning Roe v. Wade. Says in general he opposes “activist judges” but that he will not have a “litmus test” for judicial confirmations. When asked by reporter Jeff Berkowitz: if he was willing to confirm an "avowedly pro-choice judge", Sauerberg affirmed that he would. When Berkowitz further inquired if the same was true of confirming a pro-life judge, Sauerberg shrugged and said “who knows?”

Sauerberg on guns: He has said in the past he would support “reasonable” gun control measures. For example, he told the Daily Herald he would vote to re-enact the Assault Weapons Ban “if it's properly crafted." His opponents in the Republican primary often accused Sauerberg of being a closet gun-grabber. '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", noted Andy Martin, who challenged Durbin the Feb. primary and is the current author of “Obama: The Man Behind the Mask”.

Sauerberg on Health Care : The federal government does indeed have a role. Its proper role is to encourage a real market-based healthcare reform that will make affordable, quality health insurance available to all citizens. First, in order to promote coverage for every man, woman and child in the United States through the private sector, the government needs to encourage portability, competition, accessibility and individual ownership of quality medical insurance. Second, to protect patients and providers and to dramatically reduce healthcare costs we need to end frivolous lawsuits. Third, we must encourage innovation and promote best-practices at all levels of our healthcare system. Finally, without ending fraud and abuse in Medicare and Medicaid we cannot fundamentally reform our healthcare system. We can reform our healthcare system, make quality affordable healthcare available to all, and do so without increasing costs to the federal government.

If Sauerberg's such a "great" candidate, why did 45% of Republicans vote AGAINST him in the primary when his only opposition was total unknowns? If Sauerberg is such a "visionary", how come he can't even reach 30% in the polls? Durbin's GOP opponent six years ago got almost 40%, and that guy had NO money to run TV ads (unlike wealthy self-funding Sauerberg) and was running before Durbin made his anti-troops rant.

The facts show that Sauerberg is a RINO joke, has ZERO chance of "beating Durbin", and any conservative who votes for him is just sending a message to the ILGOP that they should run more RINOs and we will rubber stamp them.

“He is? Reminds me of the Republicans who claimed George Ryan was a “warm, pragmatic, conservative” GOP official....”

To compare Sauerberg to Ryan is ridiculous. Everyone who voted for Ryan did so knowing that he was thought to be the lesser of two evils at that time. In the end, he turned into a disaster but his opponent would have undoubtedly been worse as the Democrats would have controlled all the branches of Government in Illinois if he had won.

Sauerberg has affirmed that he would have for Alito and Roberts if had been in the Senate at that time. That affirmation should put Saurberg light years ahead of Dick Durbin who voted against both of these great justices. As you know it is the Supreme Court that will adjudicate the future of Roe, not the Senate.

The NRA has recognized that Sauerberg is vastly superior to the gun-grabber Durbin and while not endorsing Steve the NRA is running ads against Durbin in this state.

I am glad you quoted parts of Steve’s Health Care Reform plan in your post. It embodies some of the best conservative thinking on this topic and illustrates Steve’s expertise in this as a practicing health care professional. In case you haven’t noticed the Federal Government is already heavily involved in health care. Moving toward choice and competition would represent a huge step forward.

Part of the reason Steve’s campaign has not ignited yet is simply a lack of money. It is hard for anyone running for Statewide office for the first time to build name recognition and make media buys in the expensive Chicagi media market.

Steve is strongly pro-nuclear and has an excellent plan for our troubled energy economy. This issue also has vital national security implications. Durbin is a charter member of the “no new energy anywhere” coalition that has given $4.00 a gallon gasoline.

I ask you consider what a cancerous presence Dick Durbin is in the body politic. His speech against the troops in 2005 is a blood libel that should never be forgiven or forgotten. His shameless anti-business demagoguery while at the same time shilling for local business interests is a national embarassment. His tax and spending record is shameful.

Politics is about hard choices. This choice should be difficult: vote for someone who is pretty good versus the embodiment of Congressional corruption.

>> Everyone who voted for Ryan did so knowing that he was thought to be the lesser of two evils at that time. <<

Everyone who voted for Ryan did so believing he was a "moderate" who we have to elect because he has an "R" next to his name and we "cannot afford to let the Democrats get in power in the midst of Clinton's impeachment". Everyone who is supporting Sauerberg argues the same thing, saying although Sauerberg is a squish, we cannot afford to let the Dems control the Senate in the midst of a war.

>> In the end, he turned into a disaster but his opponent would have undoubtedly been worse as the Democrats would have controlled all the branches of Government in Illinois if he had won. <<

Again, are we talking about the SAME election? This was 1998. Ryan's Dem opponent was pro-life and pro-gun, and would have governed to the RIGHT of ol' "moderate" George. George Ryan was NOT the "only" Republican to win in 1998. If Poshard had took the Governor's office, we would have still had a Republican U.S. Senator (Fitzgerald), Republican Attorney General (Jim Ryan), and RINO Judy Barr Topinka as Treasurer. The Illinois State Senate was controled by Republican Pate Philips at the time.

>> Sauerberg has affirmed that he would have for Alito and Roberts if had been in the Senate at that time. <<

Sauerberg's so liberal than George Ryan was to the right of him on the issue in 1998. George Ryan "affirmed" he would oppose abortion in cases of "rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother" (of course, at the time he was saying that, he was selecting the most pro-abortion politician he could find to be his "running mate") RINOs actions speak alot louder than words, and I suggest you look at Sauerberg's ACTIONS rather than his rhetoric, since he has no voting record to go by.

If you take a look at his campaign staff, you will notice there is not a SINGLE conservative he appointed to his staff. His ENTIRE campaign consists of RINOs and "moderates", including a Bush-hating radical gay-marriage activist loon as his hand-picked campaign spokesman. Who he appoints to his senate campaign staff gives me a good idea who he'd appoint as a Senator.

>> That affirmation should put Saurberg light years ahead of Dick Durbin who voted against both of these great justices. As you know it is the Supreme Court that will adjudicate the future of Roe, not the Senate. <<

As you know, even though we currently have a 7-2 REPUBLICAN majority on the Supreme Court, we can't get Roe overturned because three of the Republican appointees vote with the Dems on abortion. We also have the two Dem kooks on the court because our "Republican" Senators didn't stand up and FIGHT them the way Dem senators do against GOP nominees. In case you didn't notice, your boy Sauerberg affirmed he'd be willing to CONFIRM an "avowedly pro-choice judge". Such a judicial nominee would be to the LEFT of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. What good will come of him appointing another Alito to the bench if Sauerberg ALSO rubber stamps another leftist quack to cancel out his vote? We even have RINO Senators voting down Republican nominees. Robert Bork's nomination failed because eight Republican Senators voted against him. I have no doubt the conservative votes who put them in office have the same mindset as you.

>> The NRA has recognized that Sauerberg is vastly superior to the gun-grabber Durbin and while not endorsing Steve the NRA <<

The NRA does not recongize that, as your own statement just pointed out, they will not endorse him. The NRA recongizes that Durbin is bad, not that Sauerberg is good. You Sauerfraud supporters would have us believe that a candidate is "pro-gun" because he only wants to ban guns 80% of the time, when Durbin supports it 100% of the time. That doesn't make him pro-gun, just not as rabidly anti-gun as Durbin.

>> is running ads against Durbin in this state. <<

Once again, all you Sauerfraud supporters can do is whine about Durbin, rather than say GOOD things about YOUR candidate. You are preaching to the choir. We already know Durbin is bad and weren't NOT going to vote for him. The NRA knows it to, and that's why they're telling people NOT to support him. Unfortunately for you Sauerfraud supporters, there are FOUR candidate on the ballot running AGAINST Durbin, so we can pick from any one of them. You have to make the case that Sauerfraud is the BEST candidate against Durbin. Sauerfraud and his supporters never make that case. All they do is whine about Durbin. By your logic, it would be perfectly okay to vote for Cynthnia McKinney because she's NOT Barack Obama.

>> In case you haven’t noticed the Federal Government is already heavily involved in health care. Moving toward choice and competition would represent a huge step forward. <<

The federal government has no buisness being involved in any aspect of health care. If you want to argue Sauerfraud's talking points that federal mandates for health care, education and "the enviroment" are good, conservative principles, go ahead. The rest of us think otherwise.

>> Part of the reason Steve’s campaign has not ignited yet is simply a lack of money. <<

The reason why the ILGOP shoved this RINO down our throats in the primary was that he was a "wealth successful doctor" who "had the money to beat Durbin". Since he has never held office before and is wholly unqualified to serve in the nation's highest legislative office, I can't think of any other reason why the GOP leaders would endorse a total unknown over two other Republicans before Republican voters had their say -- can you?

>> It is hard for anyone running for Statewide office for the first time to build name recognition and make media buys in the expensive Chicagi media market. <<

Good thing Chad Koppie has spent many years in public service and is well known as the only Republican with the guts to take on George Ryan in the 1998 primary. Thank you for making the case Koppie is a better candidate than the RINO the Topinka wing of the party put up.

>> strongly pro-nuclear and has an excellent plan for our troubled energy economy. This issue also has vital national security implications. Durbin is a charter member of the “no new energy anywhere” coalition that has given $4.00 a gallon gasoline. <<

Thank you again for making the case Chad is the best candidate against Durbin. Chad is solid on this issue and knows alot more about energy from first hand experience than "Dr. Sauerberg", is far better than both Sauerberg and Durbin on cultural issues. Why would I vote for Sauerfraud when I can that from Koppie?

>> I ask you consider what a cancerous presence Dick Durbin is in the body politic. <<

I already know what a canerous presence Dick Durbin is, and that's why I have never voted for him in my life. I ask you Sauerfraud supporters to give specific examples of how Sauerfraud agrees with conservatives on most issues. Name ten examples where Sauerfraud is SOLIDLY on the side of conservatives (pretending he's pro-life and pro-gun when his own statements say otherwise doesn't count). If you can't, why should I vote FOR Sauerberg?

John Kerry's campaign was all about "George Bush is pure evil. I'm not George Bush, I'm not George Bush, I'm not George Bush, and by the way, I served in Vietnam". Sauerfraud's campaign is all about "Dick Durbin is pure evil. I'm not Dick Durbin, I'm not Dick Durbin, I'm not Dick Durbin, and by the way, I have a doctorate in medicine". It didn't work for Kerry and it won't work for Steve. In politics you have to be FOR something or you'll fall for anything. I am against Dick Durbin, I am not FOR Sauerberg. I seem the same kind of arrogance, double-talk, and flip-flopping on abortion from him that I see from our current Senator. I'd love to see Dick Durbin defeated, but not if the guy who replaces him will vote the same way.

Since I'm NOT a Durbin fan, I will vote for the candidate who has the BEST qualification and BEST values against Durbin, and that's Chad Koppie.

>> Politics is about hard choices. This choice should be difficult: vote for someone who is pretty good versus the embodiment of Congressional corruption. <<

I agree. That's why I vote for Chad Koppie and not Durbin-lite, a.k.a. Steve Sauerberg. It's tempting to hold your nose and vote for the lesser of two evils sometime, but in this case it will do nothing to "beat Durbin" and simply embolden the ILGOP to run more RINOs with core values.

Everyone who voted for Ryan did so believing he was a “moderate” who we have to elect because he has an “R” next to his name and we “cannot afford to let the Democrats get in power in the midst of Clinton’s impeachment”.

Be intellectually honest. Koppie has ZERO of being elected; you know it, I know it. If you want protest the way in which the Republican Party is being run in Illinois then work on the grass roots level and run candidates in the Primary who have enough money backing to actually win the nomination. It would be more honest for you to pull the lever for Durbin because is what a Koppie vote will amount to.

Conservatives have been marginalized in this State’s politics because they can never agree on a consensus candidate during the primary cycle and they almost invariably end up fragmenting the Conservative base during the primary. It is silly to blame this internecine folly on the Establishment wing of the party. Conservatives also don’t give that much money to the party in this state. Money equals influence in politics. If Conservatives want to get control of the Republican Party in Illinois they need to have some internal discipline and open up the purse strings.

We have a winner take all system here in the U.S., not a proportional representation or parlimentary system. Consequently, third-party candidates are doomed from the start in all but the most exceptional of circumstances. Koppie does seem like a principled conservative but his campaign is a joke on on electoral viability level. How much money has he raised? Where are his television ads? What is the status state-wide organization? (near zero, nowhere, non-existent, as far as I can tell).

Conservatives in this state have been treated badly by the Republican Party. In the rare cases, where someone from the Conservative wing the party is nominated the Establishment wing tends to sit on the sidelines and pout during the General election. But that situation is almost irrelevant with regard to this Senate election.It is counterproductive and childish to punish Sauerberg for sins of the Illinois Republican Party.

Allow me to list 10 policy areas that will be different if Sauerberg is elected:

*Illegal immigration: Sauerberg will vote
enforcement first.

*Energy policy: Sauerberg will vote for
expanding our nuclear production base
and for additional domestic energy
production.

*Health Care Reform: Sauerberg will vote
for radical restructuring of our current
employer-oriented health care system by
creating incentives for individually owned
health care policies.

*Taxes and the Budget: Sauerberg will vote
to make permanent the Bush tax cuts, will
for a domestic spending freeze and will
the enactment of a line-item veto for the
President.

*Social Security: Sauerberg will vote for
private account supplements to ensure the
solvency of the system.

*Education: Sauerberg will vote withhold
Federal education spending that lacks
performance accountability.

*Supreme Court: Sauerberg would vote in
favor of nominees to the court in the
mold of Alito and Roberts.

*The Military: Sauerberg will vote to fully
fund current military operations and
veterans benefits.

*Federalism: Sauerberg will vote against
unfunded mandates on the States.

*Financial Reform: Sauerberg will vote for
the reform and breakup of Freddie and
Fannie.

Durbin takes the precise opposite position on all of the issues listed above. These are real and important differences concerning which a choice must made.

A vote for Koppie/Durbin is not a choice but rather an abdication to the America-hating, earmark loving, tax-spend-elect, troop-baiting execrable Dick Durbin.

>> Be intellectually honest. Koppie has ZERO of being elected; you know it, I know it. <<

Be intellectually honest. Sauerberg also has ZERO chance of being elected, and you know it. He is running 30 points behind, far worse than the decent but unfunded GOP nominee that ran last time. If you'd like to dispute this idea, I will be happy to bet you $100 that Steve Sauerberg is NOT sworn into the U.S. Senate next Jan. In the current election climate, it would take a miracle for any of Durbin's challengers to defeat him. Therefore, the only votes cast against Durbin will be protest votes. I will be casting a protest vote that says I want a conservative Senator. You will be casting a protest vote that says you want the GOP to run more gutless moderates. Your choice.

>> If you want protest the way in which the Republican Party is being run in Illinois then work on the grass roots level and run candidates in the Primary <<

If you witnessed this year's primary campaign, you'd realize that conservatives didn't have a chance because the combine establishment "endorsed" Sauerberg and promoted his campaign FOR him, before any Republican voters were allowed to weigh in in the matter. The primary was rigged from the start. That's why even the Republicans who held their nose and endorsed Topinka last time around because she won the nomination fairly and squarely, didn't endorse Sauerberg this time. The state party anointed him and shoved him down our throats, and now we have people like you demanding we have to vote for him if we don't like Durbin. Sorry, not gonna happen. These RINOs are going to keep losing into the GOP wises up and accepts the Peter Fitzgerald wing of the party.

>> Conservatives have been marginalized in this State’s politics because they can never agree on a consensus candidate during the primary cycle and they almost invariably end up fragmenting the Conservative base during the primary. <<

Not true in this circumstance. There are only one conservative on the ballot in the primary.

>> But that situation is almost irrelevant with regard to this Senate election.It is counterproductive and childish to punish Sauerberg for sins of the Illinois Republican Party. <<

Why? Sauerberg is running on their behalf and doing the bidding of the Topinka wing of the party. Last time around you had some "cut off your nose to spit in your face" conservatives who advocating punishing the entire party because of Topinka. I never advocated that, I advocated opposing Topinka herself and working like hell to elect the good conservatives who happened to be running in the same election cycle as her. I'm saying the same thing this time. Vote against RINOs like Sauerberg, and work to elect good conservatives like Marty Ozinga. What if Ozinga loses a close race because the funds he needed went to a useless, unelectable RINO like Sauerberg instead?

>> Allow me to list 10 policy areas that will be different if Sauerberg is elected: <<

Nuh uh. I asked you to name 10 areas where Sauerberg is solidly in the camp of conservatives, not 10 areas where Sauerberg slightly disagrees with Dickie, but already, let's go with your premise.

>> *Illegal immigration: Sauerberg will vote enforcement first. <<

EVERY politician on the planet CLAIMS they want to "secure the borders first" and is "against" illegal immigration. Durbin will say so too, if you ask him (actually doing so is another matter). Not one will say "I favor more illegal aliens first" So try again.

>> *Energy policy: Sauerberg will vote for expanding our nuclear production base and for additional domestic energy production. <<

Again, every politician on the planet will claim this. Unless you can find Durbin releasing a statement where he says "I'm against domestic energy production and want to ban nuclear power", you haven't proven any "differences" here.

>> *Health Care Reform: Sauerberg will vote for radical restructuring of our current employer-oriented health care system by creating incentives for individually owned health care policies. <<

Once again, this is so vague that EVERY politician will say they're for this. Interview Senator Durbin and ask "Are you in favor of legislation to restructure our health care system and create incentives for individual health care policies?"

>> *Taxes and the Budget: Sauerberg will vote to make permanent the Bush tax cuts, will for a domestic spending freeze and will the enactment of a line-item veto for the President. <<

I guess fourth time's the charm, you found one! Durbin will say he opposes the Bush tax cuts and oppose a domestic spending freeze (though I'm not sure Sauerberg has ever said he supports a domestic spending freeze)

>> *Social Security: Sauerberg will vote for private account supplements to ensure the solvency of the system. <<

Durbin does NOT rule out an "individual private accounts" proposal on his senate re-election website. He merely states that "Any reform proposal must ensure that Social Security is preserved and strengthened so that an adequate minimum benefit will be available to future retirees.

>> *Education: Sauerberg will vote withhold Federal education spending that lacks performance accountability. <<

Durbin says he will too, and just like Sauerberg, says "I believe we can reform NCLB so that it helps our students achieve high levels of success and provides support and resources to school districts, principals, and teachers. I want to fix the No Child Left Behind law. It helped us focus on accountability, but it has major defects. Education should be about more than teaching to the test. We need to provide schools with the resources to successfully implement real reforms."

>> *Supreme Court: Sauerberg would vote in favor of nominees to the court in the mold of Alito and Roberts. <<

Well you're half right, Sauerberg disagrees with Durbin on Alito and Roberts, but agrees with Durbin in being willing to rubber stamp "avowedly pro-choice judges" under a Democrat president. Explain to me again how Senator Sauerberg's judicial votes would be any differnet under an Obama presidency than Senator Durbin's.

>> *The Military: Sauerberg will vote to fully fund current military operations and veterans benefits. <<

Actually this whole article about Steve Sauerberg caving to Durbin during the debate, apologizing to the guy, and agreeing that Durbin has done an "excellent job" on veterans benefits, so even Steve no longer agrees with you on this one.

>> *Federalism: Sauerberg will vote against unfunded mandates on the States. <<

I googled this to see if Sauerberg ever pledged to do so, and the best I could come up with his that he pledges to vote against unfunded mandates for public schools. Not even the Sauerberg run moveondickdurbin.com "issues" page has him pledging this, so the jury's out on this one.

>> *Financial Reform: Sauerberg will vote for the reform and breakup of Freddie and Fannie. <<

Actually, I was surprised on this one, Sauerberg did take the opposite position of Durbin here. So I'll give two of ten.

>> Durbin takes the precise opposite position on all of the issues listed above. These are real and important differences concerning which a choice must made. <<

Completely untrue. You can read Durbin's website and campaign statements for yourself. Both Sauerberg and Durbin claim to be for border security and against illegal immigration, for increasing domestic energy supplies, have a goal to give everyone in the U.S. "affordable health care", are in favor of NOLB but want to make changes to "reform it", promise to "fix" social security and reform it so it can remain so it can "remain solvent", say they respect the military and want to make veteran's care a priority, claim to be "personally opposed" to abortion, and claim to support "reasonable" gun control measures but respect hunters.

The bailout issue, the Bush tax cuts, and the Alito/Roberts votes are some issues where they have CLEAR differences in how they've pledged to vote. You got 2.5 right out of 10.

So again, if Sauerberg differs from Durbin 20% of the time, that doesn't make Sauerberg a conservative, it just makes him Durbin lite. I will not vote to replace Durbin with Durbin lite. I'd like to move policy in the opposition direction, not slow it down slightly while it goes in the same direction.

>> A vote for Koppie/Durbin is not a choice <<

In Illinois, whoever gets the most votes wins. That person is extremely likely to be Durbin, but wee do have a choice to elect any of the other four. A vote for Koppie is a choice, and going on record that I oppose the 80% of the issues that Sauerberg/Durbin agree on. Of course if we had listened to people like you in 1970, New York would have elected a liberal Senator instead of conservative James Buckley, who was running on the Conservative Party ticket because the GOP candidate was almost as liberal as the Dem.

>> rather an abdication to the America-hating, earmark loving, tax-spend-elect, troop-baiting execrable Dick Durbin <<

No one except you will interpret the votes cast for Chad Koppie as voters who favor the America-hating, earmark loving, tax-spend-elect, troop-baiting policies of Dick Durbin. But once Senator Durbin gets elected, perhaps the ILGOP will start looking at how they can get back those votes in the Republican column so there won't be any more elections of the America-hating, earmark loving, tax-spend-elect, troop-baiting policies of Dick Durbin.

I would say that that Sauerberg has about 30% (which is better than zero, by the way) chance of getting elected at this point. The chance would be even higher if the ILGOP could overcome this sad fratricidal warfare that does nothing but advance statism.

For an incumbent Durbin has surprisingly high negatives. He is vulnerable if only our pathetic Illinois Republican Party could summon up a modicum of unity he could lose.

The Demo-Communists are laughing at this spectacle. They win battle after battle by managing their coalition rather than having periodic witch hunts over ideological purity. In the Demo-Communist coalition Labor hates the environmentalists and Latte Liberals look down on everyone but they don’t sabotage each other like this. They focus on common goals in way that I can only envy.

The idea the Sauerberg campaign was fabricated and shoved down the throats of Conservatives in Illinois is not credible. Andy Martin the professional candidate? This your idea of a strong Conservative candidate who was railroaded by the GOP? He had no money, no credibility, no organization. That is just silly. Actually there were three candidates in the primary cycle (you forgot about the MBA /truck driver). A fair assessment would be that a unknown candidate that had the endorsement of the State GOP won over two exceptionally weak candidates. Sauerberg won because he had some money and a few tepid newspaper endorsements. The point is after the primary is over you out away differences and fight the common enemy.

It obvious that the process in this cycle has engendered bitter feelings which are hurting the Sauerberg campaign. It also obvious that the campaign has not done a great job in trying the heal these divisions.

This bitterness has seeped in your analysis of Sauerberg’s positions. Permit to explain the radical differences between Sauerberg’s Health Care Reform proposal and Durbin’s shopworn position. Durbin supports a single-payer system. In other words, he supports the complete Government take over of the Health Care and the elimination and possible criminalization of private health care. Hilary-care on steroids. Dr. Sauerberg supports the elimination of barriers to selling private health care policies across state lines in conjunction with the expansion of Medical Savings Accounts. These two proposals for the future of health could not be more different. To conflate them as you do as in act intellectual sloppiness.

I supported Peter Fitzgerald in his Senate run and worked in his campaign. I thank him for his service his appointment of a clean U.S. Attorney in this state. It would be helpful, however, for the putative leader of one wing of a party not to retire in a huff after one term to count his money.

The last CREDIBLE Conservative candidate in this state was Al Salvi (although he went wobbly on a couple if key issues). He beat the RINO Kustra because he had SOME MONEY.

I admire your passion and am sympathetic to your positions but many of the Conservatives that have run during primary cycles in this state have been electoral jokes. The Conservative wing of the party in this state needs to be treated with greater respect by the dysfunctional ILGOP but they also need work more at the grass roots level and put forward more credible, viable candidates.

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.