Fiscal Realism: Adam Andrzejewski Wants to be Illinois Governor

First of all, I know it looks impossible to even say, so let’s clear up that last name. It’s pronounced An-gee-ef-ski. I know, I know, that means here in Illinois we could possibly go from a Governor Blagojevich to an Andrzejewski. But the difficult last name should stand as the only similarity between the two men, for Adam seems to have some ideas on how Illinois might get out of its fiscal nightmare. I interviewed him not long ago and he had some very interesting thoughts on how to fix Illinois. (adamforillinois.com/)

In fact, Andrzejewski has already made some headway in shining the sunlight of accountability on various sate and local agencies through his self-funded program — self-funded to stay independent, he said — dubbed “For the Good of Illinois.” Andrzejewski has been at the vanguard of encouraging school boards and county governments in Illinois to put their check registries and finances on the Internet for all citizens to see. In fact, his catch phrase is “every dime online in real time.”

He started with local schools and was successful at getting $1 million in vender spending posted on the Internet and from there the momentum spread to other government entities.

We picked up municipalities. We picked up townships, Park Districts, community colleges, like the College of DuPage, and then eventually counties, with the resource obviously in DuPage County, and in Cook County. So all across the Land of Lincoln I’m proud to say my efforts have led to nearly 50 percent of the people here in Illinois living with a better quality of government because of my efforts now than before I got started.

For instance, for the College of DuPage, the community college of DuPage County, Andrzejewski was successful not only in having its check registry posted, but also its salaries. And the success of this effort was key in getting the check registry for the entire county government posted.

The effort might also be underway in Cook Country, home of the City of Chicago, as well. According to Andrzejewski, Country Board member Tony Peraica contacted Andrzejewski about replicating the DuPage effort for Cook. After they spoke, Peraica was able to get a currently non-binding resolution to follow the example of DuPage County. Let’s hope they follow through with action, now.

Building on his success for fiscal sunlight, Andrzejewski wants to take this program of reform all the way to the State House in Springfield.

But that brought me to the sticky question of government spending and taxes. I asked Andrzejewski if he could promise not to raise taxes and how he might reign in spending? He began talking of property taxes saying that, “our citizens, we can’t afford our government any longer.” Andrzejewski suggested a true property tax cap as one solution to a rising tax burden.

So, of course, they think it’s impossible to put a true cap on property taxes. But we studied that property tax limitation law, and the actual statute runs 49 words, and the [A through O] exceptions run 490 words, and it’s why people are being forced out of their houses in a down economy, why older people can’t afford their property taxes and have to move, is because the exceptions are more the rule than the rule.

So my proposal is very reasonable: last year’s budget plus or minus inflation, with an option, if you can’t live with your budget, you’ve got a compelling reason you need more money, you can go to the voters every two years on referendum and ask for more. This puts people in control of their bill. They’ll have visibility that their property tax bill will go up plus or minus by inflation or deflation, and anything more than that they’ll have a stake in the outcome of a greater increase. It’ll force their local units of government to properly plan, properly involve the citizenry, and force them to live within a budget that everybody else in this world lives within. So I think it’s very reasonable, and anybody that doesn’t think it’s reasonable I think has a hard case to make to the citizens of Illinois.

I asked Andrzejewski about his proposal on the mounting pension mess for state employees and he said that he was soon to announce his pension proposal but was not yet ready to do so.

Talk of pensions naturally led to the question of a balanced budget. Supposedly, Illinois has a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget, but not a single citizen believes a word of it.

On all of these things, that’s the reoccurring theme, only in Illinois. Whether it’s corruption, a horrible state budget, whether there’s 10,000 kids on a waiting list for a charter school in Chicago, whether it’s property taxes with all those exceptions or a horrible record of job growth, it’s just — the recurring theme comes back to only in Illinois. It has to end.

On a variety of other issues, Andrzejewski seems to be pretty solidly conservative. He’s for the right of the individual to bear arms and affirmed that he’d sign a concealed carry law as governor. He is anti-abortion and also says he supports the death penalty. On that last, he had a caveat, because in Illinois he’d have a lot of input on that issue as governor.

The death penalty is an issue that I’m formulating my position on. I’ve always understood and leaned toward the egregious cases of the death penalty to have that retribution. Now, the interesting thing here in Illinois, as governor I would be able to study each case that comes before me, because the last thing that you want to do, especially in this state, is put to death an innocent man. So I would probably leave the death penalty intact and then studiously review each case for fairness that came before me as governor.

From there I moved on to a national debate currently raging: healthcare. Andrzejewski told me he favors more competition in healthcare and felt he could accomplish that by fostering more openness on what hospitals and doctors charge for their services. He also asserted that he’d “bring transparency to insurance commissions, as well.”

I’m for school choice. Here in the General Assembly in Illinois, school choice doesn’t have a chance. What I’ve done, in terms of policy on education, I would move the ball along the continuum toward school choice, because right now it’s not anywhere on the political spectrum of being able to be enacted into law. So the first thing that I would do is support our private schools, especially in this economy. There was just a note in the newspaper the other day that a private school that’s been around for a couple of generations in Addison, Illinois is shutting its doors. I would triple the income tax credit for families that send their kids to private school, from $500 to $1,500 a year.

The next thing that I would do is I would completely abolish the cap on charter schools. In Illinois, if we do something well, we cap it, which is crazy. So, in Chicago, the charter schools spend about a third less money with about a third better education outcome for children, but they’re capped. There’s 10,000 kids on wait lists for these schools. I think that’s not common sense. So I would eliminate the cap statewide. And obviously the charter school’s a special type of public school. It’s not beholden to the state mandates on education or — that go with the normal public schools, and I think that’s also common sense policy.

The other thing that I would do is very innovative. Power should follow students not bureaucracy, so specific to the Chicago public schools, in failing schools I would deliver the state portion, which is significant, thirty-five cents [this was hard to hear in the transcript, so this percentage may not have been what Adam said] to every dollar of funding, I would deliver that directly to the neighborhood school and divert the payment away from the administration center of Chicago public schools itself.

I also asked Andrzejewski just why he was running, why did he want to be governor? His answer was pretty well formulated.

I see an absence of leadership. It’s a very fair question, because I wish I didn’t have to run. It’d be much easier to do something else. But I see an absence of leadership on principle, on values that regular people share, a common sense that regular people share. And we’ve just experienced a terrible 10 years here in Illinois. It’s certainly a lost decade here in Illinois. And even with the indictments last week of Blagojevich and the whole insider crew, these seven people, the indictment of them, did not change anything here in Illinois. The system of corruption, of bloated government, wasteful spending, nothing systemically changed in Illinois government. It would change if I was governor, and that’s why I’m running.

I wrapped up our interview with a few questions about the Republican establishment in the state. Andrzejewski is running as an outsider to politics as usual and that fact is cemented because the state GOP is beginning to line up behind State Senator Bill Brady’s gubernatorial bid. Consequently, he does not enjoy the backing of the party establishment. I wondered how Andrzejewski might win over or over come the party establishment?

Well, the party establishment has to make their own case. I feel that it’s a very difficult case to make to the voters in 2010. I like my case, I like my position much better. They’ve got to justify their time over at least the last 10 years. Illinois was a fairly decent state under Jim Edgar. It has declined precipitously into one of the worst states. So if you’re a part of the establishment, like Senator Bill Brady, if you’ve been in the General Assembly for the last 16 years, he’s got to make a case, in my opinion, of where he’s shown leadership, how he’s moved Illinois forward. Where — what was the pushback that anybody from the establishment in the Republican Party put forward to help move Illinois forward?

That’s a case the voters are going to want to hear. With me in the race, that’s a case that must be made. And that would be a case that would have to be made if anybody is going to get past a Democrat in November of 2010. I could make the case, what I have done. I’ve spearheaded one of the most successful grassroots to government movements in state of Illinois history. I think, like I said, I like my case and they have to make their case.

With that the interview ended but I got a pretty good feeling of the seriousness of this effort. Unlike past outsider candidates, Andrzejewski seems to have actually thought out some solutions to Illinois’ woes. I hope that he is able to make some headway in this coming election season if for no other reason than to put some of his ideas on the table to influence the debate and for the Republicrats party of Illinois to answer for themselves.

As an alternative to GOP good-ol-boy, old-guard insider Bill Brady >> (You'll remember him as Jim Oberweis' stalking horse, who ran specifically to split the Conservative vote away from Oberweis so good friend Judy Topinka could be on the ballot in the General) <<

Yep, sure, Bill Brady, a lifelong conservative with a proven track record, spend millions of dollars of his own money in 2006 simply to sabotage 3-time loser Jim Oberweis chances and ensure evil RINO Topinka got nominated. As proof that evil scumbag Brady endorsed Topinka in the general election!! (of course Jim Oberweis did too, but this fact is only bad when Brady does it...). Otherwise, we all KNOW Oberweis would be Governor today (nevermind that pesky fact that the polls show he was polling the weakest of the four GOP candidates in general election matchups against Blago) Commence operation tin-foil hat. Ohhh yeah!!

>> Adam Andrzejewski is in the running - and polls ahow a close one. he claimed inside polling showing he was ahead -- without ever showing that supposed polling. he claimed inside polling showing he was ahead -- without ever showing that supposed polling. <<

Sounds like Adam is relying on the same "polls" you bash Bill Brady for relying on, since every poll I've seen show Adam is NOT the front runner and polling way behind Brady and Dillard. If Adam comes in third place and splits the conservative vote with Brady, then he'd be guilty of the same crime you accuse Brady of in 2006. Wouldn't that be ironic? My, my. Logic was never a strong point with the Oberweis crowd.

>> In 2006, Bill Brady looked Conservative voters in the eye and lied, blatanly lied, in the closing days of the primary, telling us he was the clear Conservative front-runner and not Oberweis -- this despite his being CLEARLY behind is the polls <<

Not to be undone, the Oberweis crowd pulled off the same stunt in 2006, blatantly lying to conservatives that Jim Oberweis had "always been a pro-life candidate" and had been "misquoted" in 2002 (news to those of who clearly remember Oberweis opposing overturning Roe v. Wade in 2002), and that conservatives needed to get behind Oberweis because this was his "last hurrah" and swearing that he " won't run again in 2008 if he loses") After losing, Jim Oberweis did indeed insist on running AGAIN in 2008, torpedoing Chris Lauzen's bid in the primary and then losing a "safe Republican seat" to an unknown Democrat in both the special election and the November general election.

>> everyone on the Conservative side trying to find a way to stop Topinka from being the nominee. <<

Yes. Unfortunately the obvious solution was never realized -- that Jim Oberweis simply put aside his ego and sit it out after losing three times in a row and give conservatives with a better track record of being the nominee. Instead he insisting on running and splitting the conservative vote with a much more electable candidate. Again, facts don't seem to matter much to the Oberweis cultists.

>> The IL GOP is starting to line-up behind Topinka's good friend who did everything in his power to ensure her victory in the 2006 GOP primary in IL. <<

You must be referring to Joe Birkett, since Bill Brady clearly knocked Topinka's liberal views on the campaign trail, regardless of how the Oberweis crowd wants to reinvent history. Now I'm not a fan of Birkett either... :-)

>> Don't let the lion of the GOP old guard ride the "next-in-line" system to a nomination. We don't reward stalking horses.

Really? Then why didn't you give up on Jim Oberweis after the FIRST time he lost, instead of demanding that the GOP "get behind him" for the next four elections and that he "deserved" to be nominated for being runner-up before? If you Oberweis cultist held Jim to the standards you are holding Bill Brady, you would have declared him damaged goods in 2003 after he lost his first statewide bid to Jim Durkin.

Wow. Where to begin?

First: the cultists weren't the majority of Conservatives who voted for Oberweis against Topinka four years ago, it was the minority “true believers” who insisted Bill Brady could win the nomination polling at 5%. That kind of denial of reality is the cultism here. Oberweis had a real shot, Brady never did.

Second: My man hours went to Jim Durkin and Pat O’Malley in 2002 in the primaries. I live in Pete Roskam’s district, not Foster's, so I had nothing to do with supporting Oberweis against a quality GOP primary opponent. I have voted/supported Oberweis a total of one time in my lifetime - when he was the Conservative alternative to Topinka. So much for your “cultist” assumptions.

Third: Brady was clearly a stalking horse, despite the third-hand, anecdotal story of Topinka giving the finger to a Brady supporter who openly hated her. The “irony” of my vote for (yet-to-be-decided best Conservative alternative to good ol’ boy Bill Brady) would be the “irony” imposed upon Bill Brady by having a stalking horse flank just enough votes from him on the right to give Dillard the nod.

Fourth: The problem with you Huckabee/Brady/”Largesse for Illegal Aliens” Republicans is that you continue to see things like being successful in the private sector as a non-accomplishment, whereas feeding off the public teet for years on end is a TRUE record of accomplishment. Fiscal responsibility in business? Not impressive. Being a part of a Congress with huge deficits and massive spending and giving benefits to illegal aliens? Now there's a Conservative record!

Fifth: Brady didn't spend millions of dollars of his own money. I don't even know where you get that one, since Brady himself has never claimed to have lost a dollar in his last campaign.

Sixth: Stalking Horse Brady did indeed “take one for the team” - the GOP old guard - by going after Oberweis votes to build up “chits” for this election from Moderates who would otherwise not support him for his Social Conservatism. Helping Topinka was his best chance of showing loyalty to the old guard and becoming an instant front-runner in the next election.

So tell me, folks, has Bill Brady promised to repeal the 50% tax increase if it gets passed? Last I heard him speak, he dodged the question pretty badly.

Brady gets my vote ONLY if it comes down to him vs. Dillard. If there is a better alternative in the race, you bet I'm going that direction. “Largesse for Illegal Aliens/Campaign Finance Reform” Bill Brady will be my choice of ABSOLUTE last resort.

First: >> the cultists weren't the majority of Conservatives who voted for Oberweis against Topinka four years ago <<

Oberweis won 32% of GOP primary voters last time, more than Brady but hardly an overwhemingly majority of GOP voters. Of course Oberweis' "support" was mainly due to him spending zillions of dollars more than Brady (probably something like 4-to-1) and having much higher name ID in 2006 from losing three times before that. Of course now that Oberweis has managed to lose a congressional seat that most Republicans could have won if they stayed in bed until November, the majority of Illinois conservatives have soured on Oberweis and come to regret voting for him, but a small minority, like yourself, continue to whine about the lost cause and maintain your delusions that he would be Governor today if not for the eeeeeeeeeevil Bill Brady.

>> it was the minority “true believers” who insisted Bill Brady could win the nomination polling at 5%. That kind of denial of reality is the cultism here. <<

Brady won 18% in 2006, not "5%". Which was quite impressive given how much the "front runners" outspent him, he had little name ID, and there was a snow storm downstate on election day where his "base" of support was. On the one hand you cultists claim Brady had only marginal following and should have done better than third place, on the other hand you claim he a big powerful tsuasmi put up by the GOP elites and has massive support and must be stopped. You remind me of the media elites in 2002 simultaneously calling Pat O'Malley an obscure fringe candidate with no support and at the same time complaining about how's "he's surging and poses a threat to Jim Ryan". Which is it? Make up your mind.

>> Oberweis had a real shot, Brady never did. <<

A real shot in the primary, yes. A real shot in the general election, certainly not. Again, we learned this in 2008 when your hero Jim Oberweis finally got his precious little GOP nomination and then got slaughted by an unknown Democrat in safe GOP district. Show me ANY poll that suggested Oberweis had a prayer of beating Blago in the general election match-up. You can't because there AREN'T any. He was polling behind Blago by double-digits. Oberweis had extremely high negatives and the general public didn't like him. Period. You attack Brady supporters for ignoring the fact Brady was unlikely to win the primary eleciton, while IGNORING the fact Oberweis had no shot at winning the general election. You would have us believe that simply getting a conservative on the ballot in the fall would be a victory for our side. Alan Keyes was our standbearer in 2004, but was their any net gain for conservatives because of that? No. When you nominate conservatives who CAN'T WIN, all you do is damage the very movement you claim to fight for. You embolden the RINOs when you support losers like Oberweis, because they can point to those losers and personify their conservative values as "the reason" they lost, rather than the candidate themselves being flawed.

>> Second: My man hours went to Jim Durkin and Pat O’Malley in 2002 in the primaries. I live in Pete Roskam’s district, not Foster's, so I had nothing to do with supporting Oberweis against a quality GOP primary opponent. <

I don't live in Foster's district either, that didn't stop me from endorsing Lauzen and opposing Oberweis in the 2008 primary because I knew Obie would be a weak general election candidate (I did endorse Oberweis over Foster in the general election). If you were fine with nominating Oberweis in 2008, it shows you continue to deny reality that Oberweis may make a hell of a cup of ice cream, but he is a lousy political candidate who can't get elected dog catcher. You mention being against Obie in 2002 (when he ran as a center-right type who was only conservative on guns and fiscal issues), while conveniently not mentioning who you supported in 2004. I wonder why.

>> So much for your “cultist” assumptions. <<

We're talking about a guy who has lost SEVEN times (yes, SEVEN times), yet you continue to persist in your fantasy that he'd be Governor today if not for Bill Brady. Now that I can look back at 2006 in hidesight, I can probably accept that given the reality of the huge Dem turnout that year, it's probably likely none of the four GOP candidates would have been elected Governor, although Brady and Gidwitz would have made a respectable showing and not embarrassed the party. Oberweis would probably done worse than Topinka and killed us at the top of the ticket. But it's time to move on.

You continue to whine about an election four years ago, and think you'll dredge up support for your latest candidate by claiming anyone who didn't "get behind Oberweis" four years ago was working for Topinka. Yes, that is the height of cultism. How many times does this have to lose before you Oberweis fans accept the fact Jim Oberweis himself is to blame for Jim Oberweis losing elections? It's always someone else's fault, isn't it? >>

The “irony” of my vote for (yet-to-be-decided best Conservative alternative to good ol’ boy Bill Brady) would be the “irony” imposed upon Bill Brady by having a stalking horse flank just enough votes from him on the right to give Dillard the nod. <<

Didn't you say you're backing Andrejewski? But now you're "undecided"? Doesn't seem you have a lot of faith in your guy's "polls", I take it.

>> The problem with you Huckabee/Brady/”Largesse for Illegal Aliens” Republicans is that you continue to see things like being successful in the private sector as a non-accomplishment, whereas feeding off the public teet for years on end is a TRUE record of accomplishment. <<

The problem with you Oberweis/Andrejewski cultists is you continue to think that a person can go from nobody to the top official in a state with 13 million people overnight, and will not accept the odds of doing are about 1,000,000,000,000 to 1 no matter how many times you lose. You can't cite any examples of anyone with your candidates credentials "winning" an election (can you name ANYONE in the U.S. who had never held office before, lost three times, and then was elected to highest office in the state like Oberweis wanted in 2006? Can you name ANYONE in Illinois history who went from running a small business and NEVER being involved in any political campaign or appointed office, to suddenly being elected Governor, as Andrejewski wants to do?) Again, you can't because they AREN'T any such examples. You simply can't face reality about the way elections work in this country. I'd like to win the lottery too, but I don't plan on it happening any time soon. Why do you guys have such a negative, bitter attitude towards the idea of running someone who's actually WON an election? You sneer at anyone who's actually held elective office as an "insider". Chris Lauzen has been in the state legislative for years but he's about as far away from the GOP establishment as you can get, they hate him and make no bones about it and the feeling is mutual. Just because someone has won an election doesn't make them part of "the combine". In fact there are many people from "private sector" from the combine, as many of the Oberweis cultists "discovered" after they backed "private sector" McKenna for IL GOP chairman (I warned 'em not to)

>> Fiscal responsibility in business? Not impressive.

Balancing a budget is great if the candidate is running for State Comptroller, but no, running a phone book company is not an "impressive" credential for being able to GOVERN a state with 13 million people, and neither is running a dairy company. Sorry. If there was some kind of massive crisis in this state like a terrorist attack on the Sears Tower, two weeks into their governorship, I'd be just as alarmed at the prospect of "Governor Andrejewski" having a handle on things as I would with "President Obama". The conservatives who mocked "community organizer" Obama's lack of credentials for President but are now backing Adam Andrejewski as gubernatoral material are being quite hypocritical.

Speaking of fiscal responsibility, one of the candidates you sneered at, Mike Huckabee, ran a hell of a great "fiscally responsible" campaign for President and was able to get more bang for buck than any other Presidential candidate. He showed he could do great a shoe-string budget. Since you're so impressed by all these "private sector business smarts", you think that would count for something...but, no. That didn't stop the Huckabee haters from calling a big spending socialist based on something he did as Governor a decade ago (which didn't bother them at the time he did it)

You also ignore the fact that those "insiders" like Bill Brady and Matt Murphy can point to the same "success" in the private sector as Oberweis or Andrejewski. Sure they didn't make millions from it but they proved they know how to balance a checkbook. They haven't been the public payroll since they graduated college like a Topinka or Dick Durbin type, they actually had real jobs in the "private sector" for years and used the money from that to get elected experience before running for statewide office. Matt Murphy owned several small Businesses and Bill Brady was a real estate developer for years.

>> Being a part of a Congress with huge deficits and massive spending and giving benefits to illegal aliens? Now there's a Conservative record! <<

It's easy to sit back and hurl stones at politicians when you have no track record yourself that people can pick apart. As such, Andrewjewski and Oberweis will be "the best" on the issues since they can offer the sun and the moon to get elected and nobody will be able to prove they haven't lived up to their lofty promises (although in Obie's case we learned he hired illegal aliens to work for him in the "private sector"... woopsie!). In fact, since I've never held an position in Illinois government, I could even top your guy. How about I announce for Governor tomorrow and I make the following campaign promise "ELECT BILLYBOY GOVERNOR AND I WILL DEPORT EVERY SINGLE ILLEGAL ALIEN IN ILLINOIS THE DAY I TAKE OFFICE". Wow. I now officially have the "best" stance on illegal aliens of any candidate running. See how easy that is?

>> Fifth: Brady didn't spend millions of dollars of his own money. I don't even know where you get that one, since Brady himself has never claimed to have lost a dollar in his last campaign. <<

You have spend millions of dollars to be able to run a mount a competative statewide bid for office and actually get votes, and Bill Brady did so in 2006. I could find the exact figures online if I spent some time looking for it, but what's the point? If Brady hadn't lost "one dollar" he would have been a candidate on paper only that received 1% of the vote. He raised millions in 2006 and had to loan his campaign a ton of money from his own personal income. It costs alot of money to run ads throughout the state and circulate literature, and have a full time campaign staff (of course it paled with the amount of money Oberweis could lend himself). If you want to continue deluding yourself into beliving Brady did all that simply because he got a phone call one day from his "best friend" Topinka, ordering him to do so to sabotage Oberweis (under the radar of course), that's your problem. No conservative outside Illinois has drank that kool-aid and quite a few of them within Illinois now realize they were wrong.

Helping Topinka was his best chance of showing loyalty to the old guard and becoming an instant front-runner in the next election. <<

Then perhaps you can explain why the rank and file GOP establishment is all supporting Dillard, who has much better "insider" credentials and was a top official in the Edgar and Thompson administrations, who owe him big time. By your argument, Oberweis was the "establishment choice of the old guard" in 2004 because he was Hastert's choice in 2002 and "sabotaged" fellow conservative (and "outsider") John Cox's chances.

>> Brady gets my vote ONLY if it comes down to him vs. Dillard. If there is a better alternative in the race, you bet I'm going that direction. <<

Fine with me. Andrejewski has the least impressive resume of any of the four conservatives running and brings the least to the table. As a result, Andrejewski only gets my vote if it comes down to him vs. Dillard. Given the circumstances, we'd be far more likely to have a Brady vs. Dillard matchup than a Andrejewski vs. Dillard matchup.

Here's an interesting story:

Back in 2006, Melissa Bean was in her first term after beating Phil Crane in 2004 (in a super GOP favored district) and considered highly vulnerable. The GOP establishment lined behind their preferred candidate, drab millionaire Investment banker David McSweeney. McSweeney's only past campaign experience had been a failed primary bid against Crane years earlier, where McSweeney had run as a "moderate" alternative and done very poorly. McSweeney had been pro-choice for years, but apparently was now claiming to be pro-life because he "had to be" to win the primary.

Many in the conservative grassroots disliked and distrusted the GOP establishment choice. The highest polling anti-McSweeney conservative candidate was Kathy Salvi, wife of former U.S .Senate candidate Al Salvi. She was rock solid on all the issues, a distinguished pro-family lawyer in her own right, while still being a great suburban mom to 8 kids. When the Salvi's had campaigned in Bean's district in 1996, during Al Salvi's LOSING Senate race to Dick Durbin, Al Salvi had nevertheless carried EVERY single township in Bean's district -- even the Democrat leaning ones.

Also running was solidly conservative (but little known outside his district) State Rep. Bob Churchill. He was polling in single digits and didn't have enough funds to mount a viable campaign. All of his voters were anti-Sweeney voters just like Salvi's.

On primary day, McSweeney got 42%, Salvi got 34%, and Churchill was in a distant third with 15%. McSweeney went to to lose to Bean in November. If Churchill had dropped out and thrown his support to Salvi, it's almost certain she would have won the primary, given that almost none of Churchill's supporters had McSweeney as their second choice. (Also, unlike Oberweis, Salvi would have probably been a very strong general election candidate).

Despite the fact Churchill was clearly the spoiler in that race and had no chance of winning the primary, no Salvi supporter lashes out at Churchill and his voters today, and nobody did back in 2004. She lost the primary, it's time to move on. No one would suggest any type of nutty conspiracy theory like Churchill being a "McSweeney plant" and running because he got a phone call from McSweeney to "stop Salvi". Nobody points to Churchill euthesically endorsing and campaigning for McSweeney in the general as "proof" they were in cahoots all along, or shows photograph of a handshake between the two of them in a primary debate as "evidence" of a "secret deal" the way the nutty Oberweis conspiracy theorists do with all the supposed "secret message" that Topinka "whispered" in Brady's ear during a primary debate. Nobody would bitterly lash out at Bob Churchill if he ran for another office today, and say he's a treasonous "stalking horse" who needs to be stopped because he "sabotaged Salvi back in '04", and I say that as a Salvi supporter.

Churchill ran because he thought he had the most to offer in that election and that he was the best choice to the GOP could run. It wasn't his time and his decision to run didn't help anything, but it was done in good faith. There are dozens of circumstances you can point to where two conservatives run in the same primary and end up splitting the conservative grassroots vote, which has the side effect of causing the GOP establishment choice to get nominated. An fine example is the NJ 2005 Governor's race, where egomaniac Steve Longean insisted on running for a statewide bid he wasn't prepared for, and won only 8% of the vote but sucked away enough conservative votes from Bret Schundler to ensure a RINO, Doug Forrester, was nominated (and Schundler was far more popular than Longean and only lost the primary by like 2%). There was no conspiracy or "backroom deal" there to "stop Schundler", it was just Longean being stupid. It doesn't show Longean is part of the combine, although it probably only hurt his own future campaigns because how he has the stigma of a four-time loser.

Only the Oberweis crowd continues to lash out at other Republicans every time Oberweis loses and claim that anyone who dares run against him is part of the "combine". They've done it every election since 2002 (and those that did not back him in 2002 have since drunk the Oberweis kool-aid, otherwise he wouldn't have done so well in later campaigns ) and they just won't stop beating that dead horse. He's finished in politics but they still cling to "what could have been" and tear down other conservative Republicans. It's getting really tiresome.

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.