Conservatives steam over Sauerberg staffer

IL GOP candidate for U.S. Senate Steve Sauerberg stunned social conservatives last week when he announced the addition of a homosexual rights activist as his campaign's new press secretary.  Christopher Barron, 36, was point man for the Log Cabin Republicans in their 2004 campaign against President George W. Bush's effort to add a federal marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

After discussion about the revelation broke out last week on Illinois Review (see "Sauerberg: Personnel is Policy"), state pro-family leaders -- including talk show host Sandy Rios and national activist Peter LaBarbera -- voiced outrage Monday on the air over Sauerberg's apparent political snub.

"It is inconceivable that Steve Sauerberg would so needlessly alienate the pro-family conservative base in Illinois by hiring a veteran homosexual activist for his campaign," said Peter LaBarbera, founder of Republicans For Family Values (www.rffv.org).

Within weeks of President Bush's amendment announcement in 2004, Barron and the Log Cabin Republicans launched its first ever $1 million ad campaign criticizing the president's effort and ultimately withheld endorsing Bush in his 2004 presidential re-election bid.

The LCR ad was designed to embarrass Bush by purposely pitting the President's position in support of the marriage amendment directly against his VP Dick Cheney's 2000 debate comments . . . 

More below the fold . . .

LCR protest ads ran in home states of Republicans who sponsored the effort in Congress. As the group's political director, Barron was quoted widely in the national media during the heat of the federal marriage debate.

In a May 11, 2004 Rocky Mountain News story, Sauerberg's now-press secretary Barron told reporter Peggy Lowe about the LCRs' determination to make two Colorado lawmakers regret their federal efforts to protect traditional marriage:

"The fact that ten Republicans joined to defeat that clearly was a stinging rebuke for the forces of division, which are led by Congresswoman Musgrave and Sen. Allard," said Christopher Barron, Log Cabin's political director. "This was her home state and we thought it was a clear call about where the people of Colorado stood on this."

Barron went on . . .

"The decision to run this ad campaign and to fight this amendment was a difficult one in that it required us to do a serious gut check," Barron said. "We decided that loyalty to one party doesn't mean checking our values at the door. We believe we're actually saving the party from the radical right and people like Congresswoman Musgrave."

Barron's addition to the Sauerberg campaign is steaming Illinois conservative leaders.

"Log Cabin activists are working hand-in-hand with the rest of the homosexual lobby to radically redefine the institution of marriage and demonize tradition-minded voters who adhere to Judeo-Christian teachings that homosexuality is wrong," LaBarbera said.

And then on Monday, despite the ongoing controversy, Sauerberg announced he would loan his campaign $1 million in personal funds.  The campaign press release lists as its press contact person the controversial Barron, implying no campaign feathers had been ruffled despite the uproar.

Both Rios and LaBarbera expressed their disappointment with the Sauerberg campaign's apparent lack of concern over the flap on Rios' Chicago drive home show Monday afternoon.

"Between this and his equivocating on whether Roe v. Wade should be overturned, Sauerberg has made his already long odds of defeating Dick Durbin much longer," LaBarbera said.

"Instead of energizing the conservative voters he needs to beat Durbin in November, he's punched them in the gut. And the IL-GOP wonders why it continues to lose elections."

Comments

[TheReallyRight Guy]

Sauerberg act was a unwarranted slap at conservatives. It raises the whole issue of whether this fellow is into political correctness.
I, myself, would never vote for Durbin, but a write-in vote for Mickey Mouse is looking better all the time.

[Marriage Defender]

The Constitution Party is listing Illinois Center Right and Illinois Forum Chad Koppie and Mike Hensley as possible candidates.

The Liberarian Party is running Larry Stafford http://www.stafford4senate.com/

The Green Party has Kathy Cummings since they are and established party but unfortunately bigger socialists than the Dems.

[Down with Durbin]

Here we go again...

Why in the name of St. Reagan can't we stop being so fratricidal and simply work to defeat Democrats? Eighty percent my friend isn't twenty percent my enemy.

Take a look across the aisle: liberal Democratic activists, the ones who can't stomach the thought of victory in Iraq, or of anything less than abortion on demand, or even a whiff of religion in the public square, are willing to fight for just about any Democrat under the sun. They understand that the time to sort out intra-party ideological differences is later, once they've got a hold on the seat.

In blue-ish states like Illinois, we need to come around to the same perspective: let's get Republicans elected. Let's get Sauerberg elected, and Greenberg and Schock for good measure (even Oberweis, however grudgingly).
Let's make sure Roskam, Biggert, Kirk, Manzullo and Shimkus reelected. If, in six years, you insist in thinking Sauerberg's no good, primary him.

But in the mean time, Durbin's gotta be ejected from office before he can do any further harm to this country which we all love.

Oh and I heard it the other day and I couldn't believe it: people were actually supporting Mike Psak. The man was a walking, perhaps even talking, joke, the kind of "candidate" who gives a bad rep to the Illinois Republican Party. He may have been conservative, but he presented himself poorly and some of his planks (an end to toll roads, for example) was both trivial and absurd.

Oh (preemptive apologies for the cheap slap) Marriage Defender, I didn't know we had a Liberarian Party in Illinois - is that the crossbreed of the Librarian Party and the Libertarian Party?

[Anon]

It sounds like Rios and LaBarbera were more outraged at the snub than the presence of a gay staffer on the Sauerberg campaign.

That is sadly getting typcial for Rule or Ruin Conservatives. Power, power, power.

[Wackos galore]

I seriously doubt Labarbera and Eaton ever even called the campaign for a comment.

Have any of you people ever won a primary or a general election?
Who keeps paying for your attacks on Republicans?
Why don't attack the Dems or liberals?

What on earth makes you think Sauerberg is trying to ruin marriage?
I know the Dr. attends Christ Church and is devoutly Christian. What has he said that would make you think otherwise? Gee, one of his staffers is gay. Guess that makes him worse than Dick Durbin.

And who said to vote for Mickey Mouse? You certainly aren't a Republican. The Dems are loving this nonsense.
Not only will you get six more years of Durbin, you won't even have a reasonable candidate next time because no one else will risk their money to take on a guy like this until they have excommunicated all their controversal friends and supporters.
Jesus Christ himself didn't have the same policies about his friends as some of you do.

[Down with Durbin]

Nice to know I'm not alone in my sanity.

[Jerry]

Wackos galore, and DwD: agreed on all counts, but you have to admit, this exhibits a political tone-deafness that virtually assures Sauerberg's defeat.

[Matt Gauntt]

Down With Durbin,

No, you are not alone. I completely agree with you.

WINNING politics is not about hurt feelings and you have to agree with me 100% of the time. I appreciate the work that LaBarbera and others do. HOwever, this attitude of needing 100% compliance on all issues or else we are going to take our marbles and go home approach ONLY leads to defeat now and defeat the next time around too.

Peter, I woul like to know - what do you hope to gain by bashing Sauerburg? Do you hope to get Barron fired? Do you hope to have Sauerburg lose the race? I mean this is a serious question. What is your 'end game'? Are you just hoping that next time around that no candidate will dare to have a stance opposite yours? My guess is that you will not only find yourself ignored this time around but marginalized next time around too. We need you out there fighting for families, Peter. We don't need to have you marginalized. Equally important, we don't need to have Durbin re-elected.

[Matt Gauntt]

By the way,

This constant drumbeat against Sauerburg has ticked me off so much, that I just signed up as a volunteer and just gave $50.

Hope others do the same.

No - I don't agree with the Log Cabin Republicans or same sex marriage - just the opposite. I DO BELIEVE IN DEFEATING DURBIN.

[Fran]

It's fascinating that when Barron raised $1 million to attack the President and fellow Republicans, that that's perfectly acceptable, but when conservatives are upset because our party's candidate demonstrates that conservative Republicans' concerns aren't important to his campaign, it's wacko.
There's little chance conservatives will raise money to defeat Sauerberg, but there's a growing sentiment that we shouldn't care more about electing him than he does about our concerns.
Barron is a nationally-known gay rights leader. Just because we aren't as familiar with his name in Illinois doesn't disqualify social conservatives' concerns.
Barron's comments about the right wing clearly demonstrate his animosity towards conservatives.
Sauerberg needs party unity to win against Durbin, and Barron is divisive.
Barron will become to Sauerberg what Wright has become to Obama.

[Paul, Just This Guy, You Know?]

It's highly frustrating when someone like Dr. Sauerberg so adamantly refuses to be pinned down publicly on an issue like abortion or gay marriage, evidently preferring to tell each audience privately what they want to hear.

We're left, like the Kremlinologists of days gone by, to try to discern and predict what he may do based on clues that he drops: "he hired Barron, he must be for gay marriage" or "he's a churchgoing Christian, he must oppose gay marriage". But where's his record of consistent statements on the issue?

I'd like to see Durbin defeated because he's anti-life and anti-family. But if the person who beats him won't fight against abortion and gay marriage, what's the point?

On 9/11, nearly 3,000 innocent American lives were taken in a war that many people didn't realize until that point had been going on for some time. For most Republicans, it seems, this has become the overarching issue to which all other principles must be sacrificed.

But every day in America, about 3,000 innocents lose their lives to abortion. In the culture war, which many in the GOP would like to surrender, every day is 9/11.

[spintreebob]

Most interesting is that both sides do things stupid and divisive. Each accuses the other of being divisive when they both are divisive.

The job of a campaign staff, and especially a press secretary, is to get good publicity for the candidate ... and to stay behind the scenes out of sight. That Sauerberg&Co have fumbled the PR on this does not bode well for the skill level of his media guy.

When will we stop this affirmative action (on both sides) that requires a staffer to be a member of the right identity group? When will we seek to hire staff who are competent, which clearly is not happening yet.

[spintreebob]

BTW, What is the 80% where Sauerberg and I agree? He has not yet communicated any part of the 80%. He only communicates that he is against Durbin. That is his problem.

What wasteful spending would he cut? Welfare to the rich? Welfare to the poor? Prairie Parkways to nowhere? Programs that are unconstitutional?

What excessive regulation will he remove? Allow domestic oil production? Allow the free market to discipline stupidity in the mortgage market?

[Matt Gauntt]

Fran,

Fine - have a fight with Barron. He deserves a good fight on the same sex marriage issue and the gay platform.

However, to throw Sauerburg under the bus because of Barron will ONLY mean that we have 6 more years of Durbin. It is that simple. The bus that is trying to run down Sauerburg is plenty big enough. He doesn't need you giving him a shove.

I'm not arguing whether Barron's views are correct or not. What I AM arguing is practicality.

[Pete Speer]

What is the point of all of this snit? I am, nearly every conservative I know is, completedly anti-abortion and as well devoutly heterosexual, against abn ERA making a special class of eithr women or homosexuals.

(And by the way, as a real estate broker under state law I am forbidden to discrimate against them, which I also accept.)

We need to enable a Sauerberg victory. That is the purpose of being under the Republican tent. We know his platform. We may not agree with one or more of the explicit planks. Sauerberg never pledged, nor should he, not to hire any homosexual campaign workers

But that is what some conservatives and this blog seem to want. If that is the cutting point, get out of the tent and by your departure make it harder for a Republican to win, make it easier for a Democrat victory both on the Senatorial and the Presidential level.

That is really some power you are choosing to wield. If a one eyed disabled, black, homosexual dwarf can organize media around the Sauerberg platform and give us a chance at victory, I say, fine.

I don't give a damn who is raising the platform flag, only that it should be raised.

[PhilCollins]

IL GOP leaders have a history of choosing the wrong candidates. Before the 2002 primary, many republican leaders endorsed St. Rep. Durkin. He won the primary, and he lost to Durbin, 60%-40%. In the summer of 2004, after Jack Ryan quit the race, the IL GOP State Central Committee asked Alan Keyes to run. Obama won, 73%-27%. In Jan. & Feb. 2006, many republican leaders endorsed Judy Topinka. She won the primary, and, in the general election, she received 38%. Last fall, when Chairman McKenna and the State Central Committee endorsed Sauerberg, the majority of republican voters should have known that they should vote for a different candidate.

[Jerry]

I'd like to see Durbin defeated because he's anti-life and anti-family. But if the person who beats him won't fight against abortion and gay marriage, what's the point?

On 9/11, nearly 3,000 innocent American lives were taken in a war that many people didn't realize until that point had been going on for some time. For most Republicans, it seems, this has become the overarching issue to which all other principles must be sacrificed.

Posted by: Paul, Just This Guy, You Know?
______________________________________

Wait...which is it, Paul. Are you arguing that 9-11 is the overriding issue (reason enough to fight tooth and nail to oust Durbin, who sucks on defense), or are you arguing that "abortion and gay marriage" are the only issues worth supporting a candidate for? For one thing, they are entirely separate issues (abortion and gay marriage). But they are also not the only issue for the overwhelming majority of voters.

I hate abortion, and I am not a fan of gay marriage proposals. But I will support Sauerberg will all my efforts, in order to get Dick the weenie Durbin out of my Senate.

[Louis G Atsaves]

I agree totally with "Down with Durbin." We need to elect Republicans to office and have a few of them in Illinois take the field. Right now we are sitting in the bleachers arguing with each other while the Democrats run wild.

Voting for Mickey Mouse will be the same as handing Dick Durbin the ball so he can continue his nonsense for the next six years.

[George Kocan]

I take comfort in this consolation: Sauerberg will lose against Durbin. It is better that he lose with crypto-Democrats at his side than with real Republicans.

[David E. Smith]

Are there ANY standards for Republican candidates to adhere to and/or uphold?

And if marriage and traditional family values are not among the (ever shrinking) standards, how can the Republican Party presume the support of social conservatives?

Moreover, what then distinguishes the GOP from the Democrats? Just economic issues?

That is not enough for me.

[Fran]

Things are lookin' up, those who are irritated by this discussion. . . CapitolFax's Rich Miller suggests Sauerberg having "Illinois Review types" nipping at his heels may actually help his bid against Durbin.

[Matt Gauntt]

Fran,

I saw that this morning as well.

Couple points:

1) No matter what you may think about Rich Miller, he is a very influential reporter/blogger, and I think it safe to say that the majority of people who are currently in power read his stuff every day. So, what he says and the perceptions of those that read and/or blog on his site (including me) can't be taken lightly.
2) The response to his post has been pretty universally frustrated at the sniping about Sauerburg.
3) Putting 1 & 2 above together, it makes us in the conservative realm marginalized, which is the mantra that I've been trying to get at.

sniping/attacking our own = being marginalized = no one listens anymore = we can't get our message out

As Mary Poppins once said "just a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down".

Maybe it's time for just a little bit of sugar every once in a while.

[TheReallyRightGuy]

We need to hear from Sauerberg on this. Why did he pick Barron? Was it political correctness, poor vetting, or a play for the homosexual special interest groups?

[Fran]

So in other words, let's not talk about Barron's swiping at the president over a position in the Republican platform, get over it, this stuff doesn't matter?

The medicine you're encouraging conservatives to take is poisonous to our culture. Sugar may make it sweeter to the taste, but it will, sooner or later, be deadly in its effect.

An interview I found in the Washington Post listed things Barron was pushing for as the national political director -- and that includes more rights for gays and lesbians.

We're living in a new day.

[Matt Gauntt]

Fran,

You completely mis-understood what I said.

The "sugar" I was referring to was not necessarily agreeing to anything related to same sex marriage, or gay rights. When I was referring to "sugar" it might take the form of helping a monumentally outflanked candidate taking on one of the most powerful Senators in the Country. How about offering some positive words of encouragement to him for taking on this task. How about helping him with signs. How about a few postive words to moderates when they dare talk to us (reference the recent posting from Rep. Cross on this web site and the vitriol that many sent to him for daring to talk to us). That is what I meant by "sugar" - telling our moderate friends that we appreciate some of the things that they have done while disagreeing with them on the things that we don't like. I was always told that you give three encouragements for one punishment. It works with my kids, maybe it will work with adults too.

As for Barron - like I said before, fine, go after him in his position for the Log Cabin Republicans or any other gay rights groups. But to attack Sauerburg as a way to get to Barron is not productive. It only hurts Sauerburg, who desperately needs our help.