Oberweis Turns Dead Cows Inside-Out

The Oberweis campaign responded to the Lauzen "Dead Cows" mailer with a radio ad today (below).

Download outside_inside.mp3

There are unconfirmed rumors that a radical, ad hoc group calling itself OPETA (Oberweis People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), intends to protest outside Lauzen campaign headquarters in response to the cartoon cruelty portrayed in the Lauzen mail piece. It's also believed that Milk Maids Local 51 from Oconomowoc, WI will be joining OPETA in the protest. Said Doris Potowski, Union Rep. for Local 51, "We milk cows. We don't kill 'em."

The Oberweis campaign meanwhile, has responded officially in a press release from Mary R. Holstein, the new Oberweis Spokescow. See below the fold:

OBERWEIS SPOKESCOW: LAUZEN’S UDDERLY RIDICULOUS MAIL PIECE IS ALL BULL

(BATAVIA, January 9) – Oberweis for Congress spokescow Mary R. Holstein – responding to a slashing, misleading, and error-filled piece of campaign propaganda produced by the campaign of career politician Chris Lauzen – today criticized Lauzen for hiding behind his inaccurate attacks, and called on him to answer questions regarding the $100,000 in tainted campaign contributions he took from a convicted felon.

“Just how much of that dirty John Burgess/IPA moo-lah did Chris Lauzen spend attacking a fellow Republican with that udderly ridiculous mail piece, anyway?” mooed Holstein, chewing her cud. “I’ve seen cow chips that looked better. And by the way, seeing as how there’s not an udder among the ‘cows’ pictured on that mail piece, it is clear that they are – like the piece itself – all BULL.

“Chris Lauzen said 19 days ago that he was going to return $100,000 in tainted money he took from a convicted felon,” Holstein continued. “But since then, he has refused to answer all questions. Instead, he has hidden behind these false attacks, using a convicted felon’s dirty money to spread lies about a good Republican. That’s just wrong,” Holstein mooed.

“Why won’t Mr. Lauzen just answer the questions? Why won’t he just tell us – when did he first become aware that his single largest donor EVER was a disbarred, convicted felon? When did Mr. Lauzen learn that his single largest donor’s company was the subject of a four-year-long fraud investigation by the Illinois Attorney General? When did Mr. Lauzen learn that the federal government was suing his single largest donor’s company for sexual harassment? When did Mr. Lauzen learn that his single largest donor’s company was rated ‘unsatisfactory’ by the Better Business Bureau, for the hundreds of complaints that have been filed against it? When did Mr. Lauzen learn that his single largest donor’s company was being sued in civil court by 40 former clients under the federal racketeering statutes?

“If Mr. Lauzen would just do the right thing, we could stop asking these questions, and move on,” Holstein mooed. “But instead of doing the right thing, he’s decided to get in the gutter, continuing to trash a good man like Denny Hastert, and now sending out campaign propaganda riddled with errors and misstatements of fact, in a desperate attempt to distract attention from his own troubles and his fall in the polls.

“Let’s just look at one example from this ridiculous mail piece – the most egregious example of a misstatement of fact,” Holstein continued. “It reads, ‘The Oberweis campaign was fined $21,000 by the Federal Election Commission for illegally using his company’s money to help his campaign.’

“To the layman, that reads as if Jim Oberweis deliberately used his company’s money to help his campaign in violation of the law, and then the FEC prosecuted the Oberweis for Congress campaign, obtained a guilty verdict, and then fined the campaign. And that’s just not true.

“To begin, the campaign in question was Jim Oberweis’s 2004 campaign for the U.S. Senate, not the current campaign for Congress, as the mail piece tries to imply. This is important, for a reason that shall soon become evident.

“Second – and far more important – the FEC NEVER PROSECUTED THE OBERWEIS CAMPAIGN, AND THE FEC NEVER FINED THE OBERWEIS CAMPAIGN.

“The obscure issue at hand was whether Oberweis Dairy could let Jim Oberweis continue to appear in a TV ad promoting his dairy’s products, while he was running for election. The ad in question never mentioned that Jim was a candidate for office, nor did the ad say anything about any political matter at all. It had nothing to do with using Oberweis Dairy money to pay for campaign ads or materials.

“According to the conciliation agreement accepted by the FEC on January 19, 2007, ‘The [Federal Election] Commission has made no findings that the violations in this matter were knowing and willful.’ The FEC, thus, never found Jim Oberweis, Oberweis Dairy, or the 2004 Oberweis for Senate campaign ‘guilty’ of anything, let alone deliberately ‘illegally using his company’s money to help his campaign.’

“The $21,000 was a ‘civil penalty,’ not a ‘fine’ – a distinction not lost on the lawyers who follow such matters. ‘Fines’ are paid by people or companies who are found ‘guilty.’ A ‘civil penalty’ is a sum agreed to BEFORE LITIGATION – usually, in the desire to avoid more costly litigation.

“Further, the 2004 Oberweis for Senate campaign didn’t pay a single dime of that civil penalty, and neither did Jim Oberweis.

“So, to review: Contrary to the implications and statements of the Lauzen propaganda, the campaign in question was not the current campaign for Congress; the 2004 Oberweis for Senate campaign was not ‘fined’ by the FEC; the 2004 Oberweis for Senate campaign did not pay $21,000; and the FEC ‘made no findings that the violations in this matter were knowing and willful.’

“Now, here’s the kicker,” Holstein mooed further. “Who was the Treasurer of the 2004 Oberweis for Senate campaign – the campaign official whose name appears on the conciliation agreement, who was responsible for adjudicating this matter on behalf of the campaign, and who knows all the details? Why, that man is none other than Joseph M. Weigand – WHO IS NOW SERVING AS A KEY CAMPAIGN ADVISER FOR CHRIS LAUZEN’S CAMPAIGN.

“That is to say, one of Chris Lauzen’s own key campaign advisers knew exactly what were the facts of the matter at hand – yet this bogus mail piece was produced and mailed, using a convicted felon’s dirty money,” Holstein continued. “One of two things is true – either Joe Weigand shared his knowledge of the true facts of the situation with Chris Lauzen, or he did not. If Weigand did share his knowledge, and this piece was produced and distributed anyway, then Lauzen is guilty of deliberately attempting to mislead the voters of the 14th District – in other words, ‘saying anything and doing anything to get elected’ – the very charge he hurls against his opponents. If, on the other hand, Joe Weigand did NOT share his knowledge of the true facts of the situation, then Mr. Lauzen is guilty of negligence – how could he NOT have availed himself of the knowledge at hand?

“Either way, this sorry episode demonstrates that Chris Lauzen lacks the judgment and temperament to serve as the Member of Congress representing the 14th District. Moo.”

Comments

[Harry]

Oberweis's "beef" is not with Lauzen, it is with the press. They were the ones who called this a "fine."

See, e.g., http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1872503/posts

Hahahahahaha....

[Cowabunga]

remember the first rule of spelling...

it's i before e, except after c

Wiegand

If you are going to attack someone, spell their name right. I wonder who asked Joe Wiegand to be Treasurer, who begged him to do it? Could it have been Jim Oberweis himself? That would be interesting.

[DuPage14th]

Too funny...the Oberweis campaign arguing over the semantics of "Fine" vs "Civil Penalty" brings back memories of "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is".

[Fran]

Cowabunga:
"I" before "e" except after "C" EXCEPT for in "Oberweis," where the "I" is after the "e" . . . sorry, couldn't resist.

[DuPage14th]

Fran,

That just proves that "OberwEIs" doesn't follow the rules, even when comes to spelling. Sorry, I couldn't resist either. LoL

[GOPShrill]

You all are taking this response seriously? Come on! It's a cow speaking! If anything, they are treating the response the way they probably see it, as a hokey attempt to attack Mr. Oberweis. Sen. Lauzen's negative attack was really weak, and the response appears to follow the same ilk.

At least Mr. Oberweis, albeit through a cow, answered the questions brought up by Sen. Lauzen. I still haven't heard a real answer to the questions going the other way.

Although I am a Lauzen supporter, I agree that we shouldn't read too much into the Pascow response - why can't we just have a little fun here and there in politics? I thought it was kind of funny.

[Screaming Chris]

What is done in secret will come to light. Screaming Chris Lauen is imploding before our eyes!
The real Chris Lauzen is now standing up. I am glad to hear after this foolish move, he has exposed himself for who he REALLY is and folks are taking notice. They now know congress is no place for a child!

I am encouraged to hear hat folks are now reconsidering their votes!!

[Jon Zahm]

Nice try. Lauzen is doing fine. Talked to him today. Saw him at two candidate nights last week where he performed well.

Alydar (Oberweis) will finish 2nd again. Like Romney, a silver, not a gold

[tfb]

It was written:

The real Chris Lauzen is now standing up. I am glad to hear after this foolish move, he has exposed himself for who he REALLY is and folks are taking notice.

My reply:

Hmmm...do you really think they are taking notice; I am skepticle of that.

Here is why. I am responsible for getting 6 homes to remove their Lauzen signs (I am 6 for 7). However until I brought Lauzen's antics to their attention those homeowners were simply unaware of them. Lauzen has a machine working in the area that put out signs, under the "fair" assumption that former supporters are current supporters (They put a sign in my lawn for example).

So what that tells me is people are voting out of habit and have yet to tune into this campaign and maybe won't, and probably will simply vote out of habit. Fortunately for Oberweis the Congressional district is far larger then the Senatorial district held by Lauzen but the population is concentrated in Lauzen's favor.

Oberweis needs to continue to get his message out and leverage his experience solving real world problems, creating jobs for the common man, providing opportunity for entrepreneurs, and experience with the onerous effect of Government on business.

As we slide into economic malaise, I cannot imagine a candidate more equiped to deal with the economic issues facing this nation than Jim Oberweis.

tfb