|
Rauschenberger tosses hat into ring
Wednesday, Nov 3, 2004 - Posted by Rich Miller
ABC7 News learned that Elgin state senator Steve Rauschenberger is a willing possibility to lead the [Illinois Republican] party back into battle in 2006. The last time Rauschenberger demonstrated leadership was when he helped bring Alan Keyes to Illinois, which is why I wouldn’t be too sure that the moderate wing has listened much to Rauschenberger lately. And, frankly, aside from the fawning newspaper endorsements, he ran a pretty lousy US Senate campaign.
Somewhere along the way Rauschenberger apparently concluded that if he couldn’t make the run, then Alan Keyes - now known as the 27 percent embarrassment - would be a dandy alternative.
|
 |
|
|
If SJR had finished second, as the article claimed, and not the reality of a somewhat distant third behind 2nd-place finisher and notorious illegal immigrant basher Jim Oberweis, then Rauschenberger would have been the easy choice to replace the club-happy Jack Ryan and take on Barack Obama. 
- So-Called Austin Mayor - Thursday, Nov 4, 04 @ 9:35 am:
I am hoping that ambASSador Keyes sticks around and runs for governor in the next election cycle.
Although I was raised a Presbyterian, I would still enjoy seeing the Wheel of Karma roll right over Sen. Steve’s gubernatorial aspirations.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Nov 4, 04 @ 10:48 am:
Before Rauschy declares for Gov. or party chair, he must announce if the beard is coming back.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Nov 4, 04 @ 1:53 pm:
Regarding the 27 percent, the best thing to say about Keyes is that he let’s Jim Durkin say yeah, I lost, but I didn’t get shellacked like that guy.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Nov 4, 04 @ 3:06 pm:
A “lousy” campaign? Because you can’t do a million dollar media splash means you’ve run a lousy campaign? If you take a look at a “cost-per-vote” ratio I think you’d conclude that Rauschenberger did pretty darn good with the dollars he had. Show’s fiscal prudence to me.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Nov 4, 04 @ 7:59 pm:
Anonymous said:
If you take a look at a “cost-per-vote” ratio I think you’d conclude that Rauschenberger did pretty darn good with the dollars he had. Show’s fiscal prudence to me.The object is to win, not conduct an experiment to see how many votes you can get with no money, no staff, no plan, and no idea how to win.
He couldn’t raise the money to wage an effective campaign and he got blown out. I’m not sure how you define “pretty darn good,” but finishing in third place and 102,000 votes behind the leader in a low-turnout primary is not pretty darn good.
His campaign was an embarrassment to everyone but a bunch of newspaper editors who were wowed with his false front of moderation. Rauschenberger talks like a moderate, but he definitely is not. Keyes proved that. But Jack Roeser’s loyalty to him also proves it. Whenever there’s a hint of trouble, Rauschenberger turns right.