Lauzen draws hundreds to Aurora rally

Early reports are that between 500 and 600 grassroots supporters of State Senator Chris Lauzen jammed into the Aurora Christian High School where they were energized to knock on doors and get Lauzen supporters to the polls February 5.

Lauzen and Aurora dairyman Jim Oberweis are battling to fill retiring former House Speaker Dennis Hastert's vacancy.  Last month, Hastert endorsed Oberweis.  Tonight, Lauzen distanced himself from the Speaker and continued to position himself as the reform candidate in the 14th CD.  Lauzen told the crowd of supporters that Hastert does not approve of Lauzen's traditional political independence. 

At the rally, former colleague Steve Rauschenberger introduced former U.S. Senator Peter Fitzgerald, who flew in from Virginia to publicly endorse Lauzen. 

WYLL radio talk show host Sandy Rios sent an audio congratulations and told the audience she was unable to attend in person after receiving complimentary tickets to Saturday's Chicago showing of "Jersey Boys."

Comments

[Marriage Defender]

It looks like if Pat O'Malley is onboard with Senator Lauzen the fab 4 is back. I think Senator O'Malley, Fitzgerald, and Rauschenberger were elected the same year to the State Senate.

This would be a tough race for me to vote in, Oberweis is due for a win but Lauzen has been in the Senate voting for legislation and defending the conservative cause for the most part.

I would probably pick Lauzen, Fitzgerald coming in helps him since establishment that got rid of Fitzgerald brought us Barak Obama.

[Jon Zahm]

What a great rally! Huge numbers and enthusiasm. Retired football star Don Beebe, who coaches football in Aurora and graduated as a Kaneland High School Hall of Famer, came to the podium and endorsed Chris as well. Chris' address was heartfelt and inspiring. "People and service versus big money and clout." That's the story of Huckabee vs. Romney in Iowa and will be the story of Lauzen vs. Oberweis.

[DuPage14th]

Awesome event! They were expecting 500, but had to set up more tables when people kept coming in.

All he right notes were hit as far as I'm concerned. I brought some folks with me that were totally undecided, and they walked out strong Lauzen supporters.

I've been to a lot of political events over the years and I've rarely seen one so filled with enthusiastic and dedicated attendees.

If I were Jim Oberweis, I wouldn't be sleeping well this evening.

I want Senator Lauzen to answer questions and tell the truth about what must be one of his biggest contributors John Burgess? I'm tired of politicians involved in the midst of fundraising scandals revolving around criminals? Why does it take Senator Lauzen more than a year after Rod and Barack have returned the corrupt dollars to return his $100,000? Why is he the only Republican to receive massive contributions from a primarily dem money raiser?

These campaign contributor issues have a tendency to linger and Senator Lauzen needs to answer these questions sooner than later or they'll continue to dog him.

[Jon Zahm]

Dead issue. Lauzen blew the whistle on himself before Oberweis asked him to. Lauzen waited for ALL the information to come to light and then took decisive action. Left wing Democrat Frank Craig was ignored by all during his quixotic campaign so his press release on the subject went without notice or response.

Keep trying to beat this dead horse. The horse will not rise up from the dead.

Let's look at Oberweis donors and investors in his funds in great detail. You won't like what you find there.

[GOPShrill]

Once again, I'm reading about "dead issues." If it were a dead issue, we wouldn't be talking about them, huh?
And returning the money does nothing but bring up the question, why now? I mean, the timing is extremely questionable. Especially when it's done on a Friday before a holiday, like someone hoping no one will pick up on it.

If it took Sen. Lauzen years to wait until he returned $100,000, while Sens. Clinton and Obama and Govs. Blagojevich and Doyle, just to name a few, have already returned the cash, then Sen. Lauzen isn't making himself look any better. Let me put it this way:
The biggest problem we have with the cost of health care can be traced to a number of factors, one of which is the amount of time the FDA requires to test new drugs. There is a bell curve when it comes to testing, and research, for more information where the point of finding new information is far outweighed by the economic reasonings of taking action on the situation.
Now, we have a Sen. Lauzen who spent years finding out information before he took action, when everyone else made their decisions a long time ago. The economics show that it was a waste of time finding out more information and returning the donations last year (at the latest) would've made more sense.
If that is the case, and it wasn't to try to avoid the questions that are being asked now, then what confidence do I have in a politician that takes so much time to make decisions he makes those that rush to judgment look all the better? You've done nothing but worsen your argument by saying Sen. Lauzen needed to wait for more information. It is a flawed statement, especially when you just needed to look at Mr. Burgess' past record and know that it is a road straight to heartache accepting large sums of money from a man with his criminal background.

[willa]

What's with the Sandy Rios line: "WYLL radio talk show host Sandy Rios sent an audio congratulations and told the audience she was unable to attend in person after receiving complimentary tickets to Saturday's Chicago showing of "Jersey Boys."

What? Skip such an important event for free tickets to a theater show?

That's a big time dis by Rios.

[willa]

One more-Fitzgerald flew in from Virginia?

Chris had better hope Peter G's endorsement does Chris more good than it did Rauschenberger in 2006.

[Jack B]

Dead issue? What new news came into light???? THat is such political rhetoric worthy of a career politician, this is what people are sick and tired of. Lauzen LIED when he said he was unaware of the circumstances because his 2006 opponent called on him to return the money way back then. The money wasn't good enough for Rod or Barack, but it was for it was for Lauzen and he's going to have to explain why.

[Scott Mesick]

I like the use of "career politician" here. Sen. Lauzen also had a career as a CPA. The term is used by operatives to besmirch Lauzen to make Jim Oberweis look better.

Which is worse, a career politician with a respectable voting record or a man who has shifted positions and spent the last 7 or 8 years trying to buy himself the cachet and influence of an elected office? Does Oberweis care about the 14th CD or is he just settling after his 2 failed Senate bids along with his failed Gubernatorial campaign? If his interest in public service and serving the people of Illinois were so strong I would suggest he get involved at the State level first, maybe the Senate or House and attempt to affect real change in the fractured and ineffectual Illinois Republican Party.

Scott, Jim isn't the first candidate to lose his first race(s) and certainly won't be the last. Presidents Lincoln and Bush come to mind immediately. I have a problem with Lauzen's mindset as a career politician. He says calling the university president's office to get rose bowl tickets is the only way he could think of to get them???? He's out of touch with reality. I know this is just a minor symptom, but there's a bigger problem. John Burgess and IPA is a much larger problem and by offering to give the money back he's admitting there's something wrong there. The way he tries to sneak it in at a "dead media" time is all too convenient.

[GOP 14th]

Scott is correct - Unfortunately, it is my recollection that Mr. Oberweis has lost three local elections too (not his Senate/Governor races), so I tend to think that Oberweis realizes his shortcomings when retail politics at the very local level matters most. The problem is that those who know him best simply don't believe he can live up to his word and be trusted. Alot of people disagree with Lauzen - heck, I am opposed to several of his positions on policy grounds. But I've been a lifelong resident here in Kane Cty. and he has never lied to me or failed to keep his promises.

Lauzen lied to the entire district when he said he was unaware of the darkness surrounding his single largest contributor John Burgess, yet his 2006 opponent writes that he made Lauzen aware of the circumstances and Chris ignored them. Even while Rod and Barack didn't!

BTW his opponent was a DEMOCRAT and is certainly no bagger of Oberweis, he wrote the letter to the editor calling on the stink from Lauzen's BS on his own.

[Albert]

Come on Jon, the fact the governor gave their money back a year ago isn't something to be happy about.

[Jon Zahm]

Career candidate Oberweis went to Kankakee to ask for George Ryan's advice and counsel after he was already disgraced.

Lauzen knew about some of the issues around Burgess and even commented on them. It was not until he knew the totality of those issues that he made his final decision to return the money.

No dis from Sandy. She is a big backer of Lauzen. She just did not want to give away tickets given to her as a Christmas gift.

[Jack B]

Jon, IF what you say is correct than Sen Lauzen's judgement is in extreme question. if it truly took him this long to realize who/what John Burgess is he seriously lacks the character judgement and personality skills to be effective in Washington. I'd like to know who/what gave him his revelation about John Burgess the Friday before Christmas? This stinks of what people had about politicians. The worse part is Lauzen is proving he's exactly what he claims he opposes! When you get holier than everyone else and then have your dirty secrets you hide the people want answers.

[Jon Zahm]

Lauzen made the right call. And he did it before the Oberweis attack crew could ask him to. That's why they, and you, are so mad. Too bad, so sad. Try another issue.

[tfb]

Jon Zahm still continues his personality attack with the statement of:

Career candidate Oberweis

My retort:

Once again where I am from, people admire folks who get knocked down, get up onto their feet, and "toe" the line again. It is called persistence.

But now let us examine Chris Lauzen, who is nothing but a career politician vying for a different spot to latch his mouth on an even bigger public teat and feed his insatiable appetite for recognition and power.

Lauzen has made it very clear that he feels he has suffered the loss of millions of dollars for his years of servicing his ego in Springfield, and now he wants a chance to seize power and build his personal wealth off the public coffers.

Mmmm...mmmm...suckle, suckle little pig.

tfb

Reference:

Lauzen comments of merit:

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2007/12/lauzen-finds-ro.html

Lauzen said he made a mistake running for office 16 years ago, saying politics is a “crappy business” that has cost his family millions of dollars.

I don’t even use the Senate license plates on my 10-year-old Buick with 211,000 miles on it. Before I got into this, I used to drive different cars.”

[GOPShrill]

Jon,

I'm still waiting on the answers to my questions. Instead, I'm getting more weak attempts at deflection. When are you, or Sen. Lauzen, going to answer them? If they are truly dead issues, then there should be no problem in presenting these answers so we can all move on. I'll list them again.

1. Why does Sen. Lauzen feel like he is an outsider when he, along with many other inside politicians, called the U of I president's office? Why couldn't he just go online to tickets.com like the rest of us (still got face value for the tix online, btw)?

2. Sen. Lauzen called politics a "crappy" business, regrets ever running for office, yet still runs for Congress. Why is this? If it is because the Tribune is lying, why don't you sue them for libel? (You can't use the excuse that Sen. Lauzen wouldn't do that or won't stoop that low, he did in the Comptroller primary).

3. Why did Sen. Lauzen refuse to return nearly $100,000 in donations from Mr. Burgess and IPA, two years ago when he knew of the problems revolving around Mr. Burgess and IPA? I return to my response on the economics of researching the issue to the point where it is wasting time and money. I guess I should rephrase this question. Why did Sen. Lauzen accept such large contributions from a person who has a criminal background regarding soliciting a 16-year-old? This information was public record a long time ago.

4. Why didn't he return the money at the same time as other politicians, like Sens. Obama and Clinton and Govs. Doyle and Blagojevich?

Another good question was presented here, as well. What specific information persuaded Sen. Lauzen to finally return the donations?

You try to deflect the questions by calling them "dead," despite everyone still talking about it. You try to blame the Oberweis campaign when the questions originally came from reporters. You think all this is out of anger, but in reality this is all for us to better understand what is going on.

Campaigning is supposed to be about presenting information and making decisions. So far, we have received little, or no, information regarding the questions posed to Sen. Lauzen's campaign.

Jon, I don't think anyone is "so sad" The fact is Lauzen tried to hide it and he's not going to get away with it. If he's half as holy and great as he tries to tell us all he is then he'll be able to explain all of this perfectly well. But just because you hide something right before Christmas doesn't mean people aren't going to ask questions.

[Albert]

Ummm if she got the tickets as a Christmas gift why was the fact she was going to be at the event talked about a week ago?

Also you can often exchange tickets

[Jon Zahm]

tfb,

Jon says:
You are losing your civility. You are the name caller and the attacker now "suckle, suckle, little pig" !!??

I recently pledged to use the "career candidate" moniker on Oberweis until the Oberweis camp stopped using the ridiculous "career politician" attack on Lauzen.

tfb..But now let us examine Chris Lauzen, who is nothing but a career politician vying for a different spot to latch his mouth on an even bigger public teat and feed his insatiable appetite for recognition and power.

Lauzen has made it very clear that he feels he has suffered the loss of millions of dollars for his years of servicing his ego in Springfield, and now he wants a chance to seize power and build his personal wealth off the public coffers.

Mmmm...mmmm...suckle, suckle little pig.

tfb

Shrill GOP asked

1. Why does Sen. Lauzen feel like he is an outsider when he, along with many other inside politicians, called the U of I president's office? Why couldn't he just go online to tickets.com like the rest of us (still got face value for the tix online, btw)?

Jon says...Lauzen called the same Admin Asst. that everyone is supposed to call to acquire tickets. It is a call that has been made thousands of times but never became an issue before because Illini tickets are not usually in as much demand. He was going to pay the full $135 per ticket price. He was not going to wine and dine contributors to a Chinese investment fund or lobbyists, he was taking his wife and four children.

2. Sen. Lauzen called politics a "crappy" business, regrets ever running for office, yet still runs for Congress. Why is this? If it is because the Tribune is lying, why don't you sue them for libel? (You can't use the excuse that Sen. Lauzen wouldn't do that or won't stoop that low, he did in the Comptroller primary).

Jon says...Politics is a crappy business when good people like Chris and myself have to fight the hate of anonymous cowards hiding behind abbreviations and fake names. The good parts- serving people- outweigh the bad and that is why he wishes to take his service to a new and different level. The part of that Trib blog that was false was the part about him regretting running the first time. Note that part was an unquoted paraphrase. Libel suits are excellent ways to keep people from lying and smearing good people.

3. Why did Sen. Lauzen refuse to return nearly $100,000 in donations from Mr. Burgess and IPA, two years ago when he knew of the problems revolving around Mr. Burgess and IPA? I return to my response on the economics of researching the issue to the point where it is wasting time and money. I guess I should rephrase this question. Why did Sen. Lauzen accept such large contributions from a person who has a criminal background regarding soliciting a 16-year-old? This information was public record a long time ago.

Jon says...The full totality of Burgess' record did not come out until recent times. Chris does not do an FBI background check on every donor that has given to him. But, now that the Oberweis crew is so worked up about this, a full background check is fair game on every Oberweis donor. I think we need to look at those China Fund investors too.

4. Why didn't he return the money at the same time as other politicians, like Sens. Obama and Clinton and Govs. Doyle and Blagojevich?

Jon says...They all gave back at different times and some donors have not given back as yet.

Another good question was presented here, as well. What specific information persuaded Sen. Lauzen to finally return the donations?

Jon says...There is a letter that was filed with a lawsuit signed by about 15 small business people. The breadth and depth of that was likely impactful. I am not a Spokesman for the campaign, just a loyal and knowledgable supporter of Lauzen since 1991.

You try to deflect the questions by calling them "dead," despite everyone still talking about it. You try to blame the Oberweis campaign when the questions originally came from reporters. You think all this is out of anger, but in reality this is all for us to better understand what is going on.

Campaigning is supposed to be about presenting information and making decisions. So far, we have received little, or no, information regarding the questions posed to Sen. Lauzen's campaign.

Jon concludes...The Lauzen campaign is focused on live voters, not faceless, anonymous attackers. I'm willing to trade spears with you. It's bad karma, but I'll take the hits so someone else does not have to.

[Albert]

Karma Jon....

Not really a conservative value now is it?

[GOPShrill]

1. "Jon says...Lauzen called the same Admin Asst. that everyone is supposed to call to acquire tickets. It is a call that has been made thousands of times but never became an issue before because Illini tickets are not usually in as much demand."

This would just prove to show that Sen. Lauzen is an insider, since he called the same person everyone else did. Remember, no one is complaining about the price. Instead, we are talking about his harsh reaction. If it is the same call that everyone else makes, I would assume he, just like everyone else that called, wouldn't have blown up. But you can't call Sen. Lauzen an "outsider" if you freely admit that he called the same person "everyone else" called. That just solidifies insider status.

2. "Jon says...Politics is a crappy business when good people like Chris and myself have to fight the hate of anonymous cowards hiding behind abbreviations and fake names."

Now, why do we have to stoop to name calling. If you have noticed in all my posts, I have never resorted to name-calling and even refer to Sen. Lauzen by his elected title.

"The good parts- serving people- outweigh the bad and that is why he wishes to take his service to a new and different level. The part of that Trib blog that was false was the part about him regretting running the first time. Note that part was an unquoted paraphrase. Libel suits are excellent ways to keep people from lying and smearing good people."

So why don't you sue for libel? If you maintain that the reporter didn't tell the truth, then step up and take action against it. Remember, the only defense for a libel suit is the truth, so it's not like the Tribune can use any trickery against Sen. Lauzen. Until then, I am going to assume the Tribune told the truth, because this isn't doin anything to deter from the fact that the largets newspaper in the state has proclaimed Sen. Lauzen as regretting running for office 16 years ago.

3. "Jon says...The full totality of Burgess' record did not come out until recent times. Chris does not do an FBI background check on every donor that has given to him."

Who said anything about a background check on every donor? I'm talking about a person who's made Page 1 headlines in the New York Times in May 2006 for Mr. Burgess' problems. Listed in the article, which didn't require an FBI background check, showed that he was: 1. disbarred from the New York Bar Association (no big deal, really), 2. convicted for patronizing a 16-year-old prostitute, 3. being charged with sexual harrassment by the federal government on 113 counts, 4. complained against 470 through the Better Business Bureau, 5. investigated by the Illinois Attorney General's office. The Times continues to state that Mr. Burgess' problems were documented as eary as 1997 in papers, magazines, and the Internet.

This goes back to the economics of decision-making. Sen. Lauzen has proven that he cannot make a decision in a timely matter if he needed even further information.

You are correct that a lot of the donations were returned by other politicians throughout different points, but the Times article prompted a lot of the money to be donated to charity or returned in 2006. Rep. Bean (D), Gov. Jim Doyle of Wisconsin (D), who was just cited as the most corrupt governor by the Wall Street Journal, and Sen. Dick Durbin (D) all returned money within that May 2006 timeframe.

"But, now that the Oberweis crew is so worked up about this, a full background check is fair game on every Oberweis donor. I think we need to look at those China Fund investors too."

I have no response, because I don't know who has donated to the Oberweis campaign.

4. "Jon says...They all gave back at different times and some donors have not given back as yet."

I have the same statement for this response as the previous one. Please see above.

"Jon says...There is a letter that was filed with a lawsuit signed by about 15 small business people. The breadth and depth of that was likely impactful. I am not a Spokesman for the campaign, just a loyal and knowledgable supporter of Lauzen since 1991."

Is there any chance that Sen. Lauzen will release this letter? If anything, it could prompt others to return the money so Mr. Burgess can no longer be a questionable part of any other campaign. Plus, if it was enough for Sen. Lauzen to return the money, it should be helpful for the AG's office to continue in their investigation against IPA and Mr. Burgess.

"Jon concludes...The Lauzen campaign is focused on live voters, not faceless, anonymous attackers. I'm willing to trade spears with you. It's bad karma, but I'll take the hits so someone else does not have to."

I'll continue to engage in this dialogue as logical as possible, and without name-calling. Thank you for your responses and I look forward to continuing this debate.

[tfb]

Jon writes:

You are losing your civility. You are the name caller and the attacker now "suckle, suckle, little pig" !!??

My reply:

Retaliation my Internet acquaintance for the "career candidate". If you back off so will I.

However, in my policy of fairness, you wrote the following:

I recently pledged to use the "career candidate" moniker on Oberweis until the Oberweis camp stopped using the ridiculous "career politician" attack on Lauzen.

My reply:

Ok, please explain to me why it is unfair to label Chris Lauzen a career politican. He has spent 16 years so far living off the public and now he wants to continue living off the public in a new office that apparently is naught but a bigger nipple.

I am being honest here, how can you possibly claim he is anything but a career politician. 16 years is long, long time at anything and almost anyone would call that a career. Has not Lauzen's tenure at the public trough exceeded his tenure in the private sector?

Please explain why Chris is not a career politician.

Genuinely curious,

tfb