* I had an e-mail exchange with Dan Proft last month that I meant to post at the time, but didn’t get around to it because session had kicked into high gear and I was buried with government stuff. I asked him for permission yesterday to reprint our exchange and he agreed.

Proft sent me a characteristically ascerbic note last month about a post I did disagreeing with his big-bucks support for Keith Matune, a Republican who finished just a smidgeon behind GOP Rep. Ron Sandack in the March primary…

The worst thing Proft did though, was that when the truth came out [about Matune’s multiple arrests], he didn’t back away. Instead, he doubled down, forcing the House Republicans to spend a fortune to keep the seat. If Proft’s guy had won, the House Democrats would have assuredly jumped in and made the House Republicans spend even more money to defend the seat.

Look, this is a free country. Proft can do whatever he wants. But the Matune race shows his only real priority was defeating a Republican he didn’t like, not winning a Republican seat. It was totally irresponsible to push a supremely flawed candidate so hard.

* Proft’s response…

Your analysis of Sandack-Matune conveniently ignores the substance of Sandack’s legislative record–the focus of the campaign material I put out. Additionally, it ignores the details of the Matune allegations Sandack misrepresented or outright manufactured and any context to his 20-year old arrests for such crimes against humanity as public urination.

But I’m “reckless and irresponsible.” Okay. Someday–and I know today is not that day–I hope you’ll give consideration to your routine defenses of all things GOP establishment, particularly when those defenses offer no contextual consideration of their performance–you know, those guys in the superminority–much less mine.

I am forever fascinated by the differing standards of analysis.

Regards.

* Lemme let you in on a little secret. We disagree about a lot of stuff, but Proft and I have a history that’s been mostly friendly, albeit peppered with occasional acrimony, which I actually have enjoyed. So I chuckled at his e-mail and, since I’m not generally in the habit of sending long e-mails, my reply was brief…

You do have a way with words. But your response completely ignores my points.

* Proft fired back…

Which is what, the shibboleth from Team Durkin you’re re-purposing that Matune would’ve put the district in play in the general? Nonsense. 60%+ GOP district.

They were making the same argument against [Peter] Breen and he is unlikely to even draw an appointed opponent (certainly not one of any consequence) according to what I understand.

* My reply…

More nice words. You may refer to it as a shibboleth, but it’s real. More importantly, though, you forced leadership to spend money it didn’t have on a primary to fight off a very flawed candidate.

Shibboleth: An old idea, opinion, or saying that is commonly believed and repeated but that may be seen as old-fashioned or untrue.

* Proft…

They spent money to defend a very flawed candidate. As they did with Pihos. No one forced Durkin to spend money. His choice. Just as it was my choice.

Two years ago against a woefully underfunded candidate Sandack won 54-46. This time by 150 votes. Maybe there is an actual uneasiness with Sandack in his district with darn nearly half of the GOP primary electorate that should be considered? Is that possible? Should that be part of the assessment? Why is Sandack such an unpopular incumbent (and was before his marriage vote)? Compare his fav/unfav numbers to Pihos, for example, before I ever spent a dime in either race (except on polling).

We don’t exist to do leadership’s bidding because they have titles. That philosophy begets the superminority–as they have proven. I don’t see offices as someone’s birthright where someone else gets to decide who runs and who doesn’t and when. That approach pushes talented people away–a long-running problem with the GOP.

So when does a decade-plus of under-performance demand questioning of “leadership’s” decision-making? I am baffled by the deference they are supposed to be afforded.

Oh, and considering our interests are now aligned for the general election and Durkin has expressly asked for me help, “leadership” has a strange-way of party-building or asking for help. But that too will be left on the cutting room floor, I suppose, as it doesn’t fit the narrative or a plucky group of legislative leaders financed by the politically promiscuous trying to stave off assaults from the radicals who believe in free minds and free markets.

* At that point, I said he’d made some good arguments, then shifted the discussion to our mutually beloved White Sox. I’m just not into these long back and forth e-mail arguments and figured we were finished arguing and now it was time to talk about other stuff.

Look, I don’t agree with everything Proft wrote or everything he has done, but that’s not required. Some of y’all hate the man and you have your reasons. But while I’ve winced more than once when he’s said or done something I didn’t agree with, I have never, ever disliked him.

My best friend in the world once told me that you should never hate more than three people at once. If you hated more than three, it probably said more about you than them. A disagreement is just that. It ain’t personal and you shouldn’t make it personal unless everybody’s going to the mattresses.

* Anyway, try to address his points in your comments instead of his personality. And keep my best friend’s warning about hatred in your thoughts. Thanks.