Tuesday, June 12, 2007

Personal Asides: Chris Lauzen May Run for Congress…Hmmm. “Snuffed Out” Not Familiar to Chicagoans, Eh?



It’s no news to anyone who has continually read this website that I supported Jim Oberweis for the gubernatorial nomination, supported Jim Oberweis for the U. S. Senate in the primary election and felt exceedingly depressed after the State Central Committee did not choose Jim Oberweis to succeed Jack Ryan for the senatorial nomination. Moreover, I have carried the fight beyond the gubernatorial primary to Sen. Bill Brady for targeting Oberweis in the primary when all logic would have prescribed him going after Judy Baar Topinka, the leading candidate. I still believe a kind of fix was in. That I should forget and forgive old enmities came home to me clearly when I heard that Jim Oberweis met not long after election with Brady and allowed bygones to be bygones—which is what I should have done instead of nursing old political scabs. After all, who am I to continue to be upset about Brady in behalf of Oberweis when Oberweis has made up with Brady? Exactly.

So now in the 14th district where the congressional seat is held by J. Dennis Hastert, the rumor is that perhaps he will not run again. If he does run again, obviously Republicans will support J. Dennis Hastert. But if he does not, a few names have been circulated. One is that of Jim Oberweis. Sorry, nothing against Jim because I have been an Oberweis veteran in the trenches…but this time I think my allegiance will shift to someone else….someone with excellent legislative experience, who has served the people brilliantly for 15 years…someone who is utterly unassailable from the standpoint of conservative credentials…who has been used to competing against heavy odds—almost always when the GOP establishment has been against him. This is State Sen. Chris Lauzen of Aurora. A superbly educated fiscal conservative, a superbly trained social and governmental logician, a man of the highest intellect and extraordinary gifts, it is my hope that he will be the successor to Congressman Hastert when the time comes.

Chris is noteworthy for doing what he thinks is right no matter what the political consequences. He was opposed in its initial go-round by some heavy Republican establishmentarian forces including Jim Edgar and won. He was singled out as one of the “Fab Five” in the state Senate along with Peter Fitzgerald, Patrick O’Malley, Steve Rauschenberger and Dave Syverson. I was gratified when he defeated Harry Seigel, an establishment favorite for the state comptroller nomination. I was impressed when he single-handedly and alone challenged George Ryan’s faulty spending on “Illinois First.” Since then he has walked alone but because of his doughty intelligence and convictions he has been joined by many of his friends, among whom I wish to be included. Not that we have always agreed--but disagreement with civility is part of polity.

If Jim Oberweis, who has already spent more than $7 million in past campaigns, runs for the Congress in that district…the umpteenth campaign of his life…he can do great damage to the prospect of a brilliant lawmaker going to Congress. There is always some greedy consultant who wants to importune wealthy people to run—for the consultant’s own benefit. For some reason—and I think it unfortunate—the electorate does not cotton to Oberweis: but I am no electoral psychologist. If I were, Jim Oberweis would be either Senator or Governor today. Now, I think it best for Jim to concentrate on using his good name and undeniably strong views to help the ticket this time and take a breather—especially from the 14th district. The chance to elect a Chris Lauzen to the Congress comes once in every blue moon…and I hope no conservative shirks from the opportunity to help him in the 14th. Of course you know that I don’t have any vested interest in Chris’ political career; my radio show hosts both sides of every contest, the mike open to all candidates for the post, Republican or Democratic.

I’d be interested in what you think of Chris in Reader’s Comment.

Snuffed Out.

As we have seen, Fr. Michael Pfleger, the left-wing media darling and such a hot exponent of gun-control that he threatened to murder a Riverdale gun shop owner, is an angry demagogue who excels at delivering stem-winding political sermons to congregations for whom he is expected to celebrate Mass. This is hot stuff for the liberal media which, since they are disinterested in moral absolutes, have adopted “gun control” as the first article of their secular religion. Pfleger has gotten away with slangy street palaver to shows how hip he is, how well he understands the lingo of ghetto life. He has even put on a South Side black accent…although he is white…to be close to the discordant masses he calls grandly “my people.” In essence what you have is a white version of Fr. Jean Bertrand Aristide with all the trimmings and yearnings for political power.

Because he is an emotionally overhung faux crusader, devoid of humor or modesty, when he went rhetorically over the top the other day and shouted to the gun shop owner that we will “snuff you out” he could not bring himself to say he misspoke. Had he done so, the error would be as quickly forgiven as it was unprinted by the supplicants of the media. No, just as his great mentor Jesse Jackson, Sr. cannot admit of an error, neither can Pfleger. So he was forced to insist that he didn’t and doesn’t know the meaning of the phrase “snuff out.” He is ignorant that since Al Capone’s day, it has meant murder. And he says the fact that the media who covered him didn’t mention his remark shows that the media themselves were unaware of what “snuffed out” means.

A friend who ran a check with “Roget’s New Millennium Thesaurus” found that synonyms for the word “dead” include deceased, dead duck, departed, done-for, exterminated, extinguished, fallen and “snuffed out.” Another check for the words “not alive” include defunct, departed, lifeless, liquidated, off’ed, rubbed out and “snuffed out.” Perhaps it would be good for some who read this to send it to the various city desks and assignment editors who feign ignorance of the words.

The subsequent publicity of the episode has made nary a dent with the secularly humanistic liberal “Tribune” which believes that if it does not cover a story that slights liberals, it didn’t happen…nor with the blissfully slavish Ron Magers of Channel 7 who with Cheryl Burton ran a panel on violence which included Fr. Pfleger, the patron saint of gun confiscation. The presence of guns, you see, not anything else—not broken families, not the failure of clergy to insist on observance of the moral code…the presence of guns is the sole reason for violence…not lack of religious or moral message which can be laid to the doorstep of the unruly and disobedient priest and his colleagues. Let’s say Magers and Burton read their scripts and asked the proper questions mandated by their editors. Whenever I see those two I think of the phrase delivered after application of the powder puffs: “I’m ready for my close-up, C. B!”


  1. Tom, I agree with you 100% on Chris Lauzen. He’s earned and deserves the Congressional seat. No question. In fact if Hastert doesn’t have the decency to step aside this time, I think Lauzen should still run. Denny deserves a primary challenge, and besides, if Denny did run “one more time” we can probably assume another scam is afoot.

    But let Bill Brady off the hook? Why? So we can encourage the same bad behavior and get screwed down the road yet again? You acknowledge your belief that Brady helped give us Blago (via an unsupportable Topinka), but you now want to give him a pass to the next level? And just because the next potential spoiler (incredibly now it’s Jim Oberweis), is doing a goofy thing too? Three milquetoasts do not make one spine.

    Come on Tom, you went to the waffle house on Bob Kjellander too. Forgiveness is great, but there has to be remorse and a desire to receive forgiveness first. You aren’t being a better person or a better Christian, you are just helping guarantee that we attract more weasels to this game. You just help guarantee that the conservative flag isn’t moved forward.

    Throwing in the towel on accountability just means that we’ll all be in our late 70’s and still wringing our hands about how true Republicans can’t get elected statewide. We’ll all just be blogging truisms about Presidential candidates we’ll never see in Illinois after the primary is over.

    You’re a great writer Tom, but I think we’ve all had our fill of the milquetoast.

  2. TR,

    Not sure why you put Brady on the hook to begin with. Solid,traditional conservative ran an upfront campaign, and did not demonize his opponents one iota.

    The Press refused to cover the gubenatorial primary, concentrating on the usual miserable subjects, rather than the issues. Oberweis, Brady and Gidwitz were all good candidates, and solid on issues. With a bit of coverage in the Trib or SunTimes any of them could have defeated JBT, who also was by far a better candidate for governor than the current visitor in Springfield.


  3. Tom, are you talking about Chris Lauzen, or Chris Lauzen CPA? This is an important distinction and one that Senator Lauzen went to court to make.

    Now undoubtedly Mr. Lauzen CPA aspires to go to Washington to represent our (mine included) social conservatism. However, while he and his supporters might relish the chance to vote for federal laws targeting risque Abercrombie & Fitch ads, I wonder if he has pondered the harder questions, such as those surrounding the Iraq War.

    For example, does he believe the President can take the country to war? Republicans were against this when it happened in 1950, but by 2002 Dennis Hastert led the Republican controlled House in rubber stamping it.

    Would a Congressman Lauzen (CPA) endorse such an unconstitutional abdication of congressional responsibility?

    Yes, I know he (CPA) is pro-life, but what about 3400+ servicemen, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis? Or the tens of thousands of greviously wounded young Americans who survived, but will live decades with life altering injuries?

    If Chris (CPA) is for an unbridled executive big government make the world safe for democracy type foreign policy, stick a fork in him. He's no better than the abysmal congressman he aspires to replace. And I, a 14th CD Republican, will work and vote against him.

    In his favor, it appears the White House will change parties in 2008. A Republican congress to offset the executive branch will be necessary. I can't see repeating the mistakes of 2000-2006 with a Democratic president and congress.

  4. John Powers, maybe you were oversees or something during the primary last year. Obviously you were out of touch because that's about all Brady did was to hammer anyone who got close to Topinka. And of course that meant attacking Oberweis most of all.

    I'm no big fan of Oberweis. But at least tell the truth about Brady. Brady's the guy who accused Obe of wanting to pick of illegals in his helicopter. He accused Obe of being a flip-flopper. Brady made a huge deal and went public with that silly "draw straws" idea that Obe mentioned in confidence. Brady did it just to embarrass Oberweis. Brady rehashed the "Taliban" gaffe from a previous campaign and tried to make that an issue again. Brady attacked Obe for having one mtg with George Ryan, but never said a peep about the tons of meetings Topinka had over the years with her pal George.

    The truth is about the only thing Brady did was to attack Oberweis because those were his marching orders.

    It's not about a "conspiracy theory." It's just about Brady being a sell-out hack.

  5. First, it is time for Dennis Hastert to go into retirement. He was just a wee bit too connected to big money special interests for my taste.

    I like a socially conservative Republican who focuses on the needs of small business and the middle class. Chris is such a person. His track record is perfect and he is very approachable. Unlike Dennis Hastert, Chris will take calls from a radio talk show audience.

    The problem I see is that Oberweiss is looking for that big EGO TRIP. He has flip floped on the issues and really does not have a firm grasp of anything but the social prestige of the office. I fear that he will egotistically ride his candidacy into the wall and in the process split the conservative Republican vote with Chris... allowing a Biggert/Fawell/Erlenborn moderate to get it. I remember when Conservative George Ray Hudson and Conservative Mark Rhodes were pitted against each other for the district around Hinsdale.... who got in? The MODERATE.... Fawell! As I understand it, Hudson was set up by the back room big boys TO split the vote!

    The same will happen if Oberweiss and Lauzen battle it out and then a Moderate will grab the seat. The other problem in that area is that it is rapidly going Hispanic with the Hispanics voting DEMOCRATIC...... no not Republican you neo-con Rove inspired dreamers..... but DEMOCRATIC... The ballots in much of Kane County are printed in SPANISH and ENGLISH because of Federal mandate. Refer to Schipper's book "SELLOUT" for the Democratic game plan for winning through demographic shift. This is happening in the Hastert area. Look what happened in Lake/McHenry County with the Democrat "Bean Bag" getting in. Tom and others should take a ride into the Fox Valley area and see the "shift" for themselves. And don't tell me these people are going to vote "conservative" when they thrive on Democratic handouts!

    Lauzen has a tough road ahead of him. Oberweis's blind ego trip may derail it all!

  6. Mr. Huh,

    The exchanges between Brady and Oberweis sound pretty much like a typical campaign to me, and even covers a legitimate issue or two. Let it rip. That is why we have primaries rather than annointments.

    Now that the two candidates have buried the hatchet, why shouldn't the conservative voters of this State stop being sniffy and agree on a few issues and a single candidate?


  7. Oh I see John, get caught spreading disinformation, so you just want to move the goal posts now.

    What began as:

    "...and did not demonize his opponents one iota."

    Now it's just a "typical campaign."

    If saying in a debate that your opponent wants to scoop up illegals in his helicopter isn't a demonizing attack, I don't know what is. And frankly, I don't care (if it's true) that Obe and Brady have "made up." It's not about them, it's about the voters. If Obe now supports a dishonest sell-out like Brady, I can't support Obe either.

  8. Yes Huh?,

    That is not particularly demonizing, sort of a silly hyperbole, but certainly recoverable.

    The sniffy reactions of the Conservatives in Illinois to any disagreement has got us where we are today, and is threatening the national Republican party. We are going to be stuck with more Blago's, more Madigans, and more Emil Jones till we get our chins up and get behind good candidates.


  9. Still fighting the 2006 primary, huh? Topinka's primary victory still gets to you, huh?

    Throwing around language like "dishonest sell-out", huh? Only one group I know of with that fixation, and it's in Carpentersville.

    Huh, you are entitled to your opinions and conspiracy theories, but be advised, the majority of Republican primary voters don't agree with you.

    Voters, perhaps even Bill Brady, are allowed to support or oppose anyone they choose for whatever reason. If 2006 primary voters thought Jim "draw straws" (or perhaps "helicopter") Oberweis was not their choice, then they have every right to make that decision. Same with Chris "CPA". If voters think these guys are weird, they cannot be forced to vote for them.

    BTW, I'd vote for either Jim or Chris for congress if I thought (which I do) that the country will elect a Democrat as president in 2008. Just as I had no problem voting for Judy last November knowing that the Democrats were controlling the legislature.

    You see, controlling, limiting and hamstringing government is the name of the game, not ideological purity, or my favorite (/sarcasm off) "advancing principles".

    So, huh, get over your petty slights from the 2006 campaign. Jim, Bill and Judy have.

  10. Well let's see, Topinka got trounced by one of the weakest incumbents in history. She's done in politics.

    Brady destroyed his reputation. He's toast for any higher office.

    And Obe's out of gas. He's done.

    If that's "getting over petty slights" - that's great. Good luck with it.

  11. Huh, you can ridicule whoever you want, but any one of the people you've named, and even the kind owner of this blog, Tom, will get more speaking invitations from Republican groups than all of the clowns in Carpentersville combined. Each is held in good esteem.

    Even former Governor Edgar, who Jack challenged some years ago, is held in high esteem, in spite of your best efforts.

    You can continue to stew about, in your words, "conspiracy theories", and the lost cause of the 2006 Republican primary. Have at it. Enjoy yourself.

    In the meantime, I'll have a beer.

  12. As far as the 14th congressional cluster goes, my instincts say it's phantom primary.

    If you were in charge, would you want to risk the republican seat in a battle-royal primary... followed by a real GE campaign? I'm not saying this is right or fair; it just goes against the nature of IL politics.

    This situation has all the makings of a good Rahm project.

  13. Hey "Foghorn", I'm happy as a clam. It's great not being a bootlick and not always trying to fool voters.

    And as all non-beersots recognize, he who forgets history is doomed to repeat it.