Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Is Dillard treasonous? “No,” says Tribune

Posted in:

Illinois
Obama

* The Tribune’s editorial board thinks that Sen. Kirk Dillard’s TV ad for Barack Obama is a peachy keen…

Treason? Hardly. Dillard has responded like a real person, someone whose admiration for a colleague isn’t predicated on an R or a D.

* Dillard told the edit board that his phone was ringing off the hook…

“The ultra-right committeemen called and expressed their disappointment yesterday and today,” Dillard said. “They’re calling right now, thanks to agitators out there who spanked these guys into a frenzy.”

* Today’s Senate GOP caucus should be interesting. Senate Republican Leader Frank Watson wants Dillard, a member of Watson’s leadership team, to explain himself to his fellow Republicans…

Watson… called on Dillard, a Senate Republican whip from Hinsdale, to “address why he did this and the ramifications of it” in a meeting with the Senate GOP lawmakers Wednesday.

“He is a leader in the Republican Party, and I think maybe that’s a step beyond where he should have gone,” Watson said.

* But Dillard was defiant, and claimed that the ad was no big deal and said “My caucus should thank me” for all the publicity…

“The bigger message being sent is that we know how to cooperate, and the current crop of Democrats needs to have an infusion of Republican input because it’s just gridlock and economic chaos coming out of Springfield,” said Dillard, a supporter of GOP presidential contender John McCain of Arizona.

* As you can imagine, former Senate President Pate Philip is not a happy man. Pate recommended Dillard to replace him as DuPage County GOP chairman, never liked Democrats much and wasn’t exactly the most open-minded person on racial issues…

“To say I was disappointed in him would be an understatement,” Philip said.

I’ll bet.

* And what happens if John McCain doesn’t win the primary? Well, this is what Dillard told ABC7…

Dillard also said he isn’t endorsing Obama “at this juncture,” but he has not decided what he will do if McCain loses the Republican nomination and Obama ends up winning the Democratic race.

* Related stories on the GOP’s latest problems…

* GOP stalwart switches sides - Democrats welcome Froehlich’s move

* Illinoize: GOP loses solid conservationist

* Illinois Reason: On Froehlich switch

posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Jun 27, 07 @ 8:40 am

Comments

Obama and McCain are both low in the polls. Who cares what Dillard thinks about these two candidates?

Comment by Patriot Wednesday, Jun 27, 07 @ 9:00 am
“The ultra-right committeemen called and expressed their disappointment yesterday and today,” Dillard said. “They’re calling right now, thanks to agitators out there who spanked these guys into a frenzy.”

Ultra-right?
Agitators?

Keep twisting the knife loser.

Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Jun 27, 07 @ 9:06 am
“wasn’t exactly the most open-minded person on racial issues”

You are so gentle on old Pate…

– SCAM

Comment by so-called "Austin Mayor" Wednesday, Jun 27, 07 @ 9:18 am
If they ever build a statue to Pate, I want it to be made out of onyx.

Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Jun 27, 07 @ 9:39 am
he bigger message being sent is that we know how to cooperate

Well, the big message is that:

1) Dillard supports McCain. Does he REALLY want a D candidate that is similar to McCain in the election for Bi-partisan cooperation? Would it not be better for McCain (and R chances in general) if the D candidate did NOT have that reputation?

2) It seems normal for politicians NOT to endorse members of the other party, and certainly not to make commercials. Sneaking a member of the opposition onto your “sample ballot” is the way that is usally done (as Rush did for JBT).

Demeaning people who complain about that seems not the best way of handling what should be an expected reaction.

not decided about general election

And he thinks this will help?

Comment by Pat Collins Wednesday, Jun 27, 07 @ 9:42 am
We need more civility in society and politics. I think it is great that Dillard did that for a friend and I am a pro-life Republican who has respect for Obama but disagrees with him on some issues. Good for Kirk!

Comment by Suburbs Wednesday, Jun 27, 07 @ 9:51 am
As for Froehlich, looks like he is handing over the entire Township to the inept, Rocco Terranova. The Dem Committeeman who could not win a thing (outside of Bean) outside of a fluke. What he basically did (outside of taking care of himself) is prove what FIRST/Best said to be true, despite all the hard working precinct captains who were very dedicated to him/his character. Despite his reasons (some are valid) this move is inexcuseable. [Edited by Miller for content. Please, keep it clean.]

As much as this disgusts me, I will continue to watch how he votes. I simply don’t realize how you can go from where he was to where he is now.

Comment by Wumpus Wednesday, Jun 27, 07 @ 10:16 am
Ilinois Republicans seem to be trying to beat the
national scene Republicans to a total party meltdown. Just can’t get a grip.

Good news for Blago? Not necessarily. A lot of otherwise reasonable Republicans still hate him for all the partisan stuff. Demonizing JBT. Dumping lifetime republican civil servants as reps of the Evil Empire. Etc. And being clueless, he STILL waves the evil Republican flag whenever he gets the chance.

Those moderate Republicans have to vote for somebody. How about Lisa. The Blagojevich governor-for-life crew must feel a trifle uneasy about that possibility when they contemplate their futures late at night.

Comment by Cassandra Wednesday, Jun 27, 07 @ 10:47 am
Froehlich left to save his own hide. he’ll be at home with the DEMs … likes of “Godfather” Emil Jones and “Squeaky” Stroger.

Comment by omg Wednesday, Jun 27, 07 @ 10:49 am
John Kerry Dillard ” I voted for Obama before I voted against him.”

Comment by A Citizen Wednesday, Jun 27, 07 @ 11:21 am
I decided not to post on this issue yesterday because it seemed like an intramural dispute among Republicans. But I think the Tribune hit the nail on the head.

Win or lose, Obama is a candidate with bipartisan appeal. He is not a polarizing figure - he can work with and listen with members of both parties.

After 8 years of unrelenting attacks on the Clintons and 8 years of the Bush administration, we need more politicians like Obama, Dillard, Jim Thompson, etc.. who can set aside partisan differences and get things done in the best interest of everyone. The immigration bill in would be a prime example of extremists preventing compromise in Congress.

Extremism in the defense of partisan ideological principles is a vice,not a virtue - no desrespect to Barry Goldwater intended.

I don’t see why Republicans are so outraged by the Dillard endorsement. George Bush did the same thing in his 2000 campaign - used Texas Democrats to establsh his credentials as a “uniter,not a divider.”

I agree with many Republican commnetators that Froelich’s party switch seemed to be based upon self-interest/political survival given the changing political demographics in Schaumburg. Similar siutations caused Democratic to Republican switches during the Reagan era. It’s no big deal since it didn’t affect the balance of power in the State House of Represntatives.

I agreed with Schnorf’s suggestion yesterday that there isn’t much differnce between a lot of Republicans and Democrats in Illinois. Scratch a white ethnic committeman on the Northwest (Dick Mell) and Southwest (Bill Lipinski) sides of Chicago and you’ll find a Republican. I’m not trying to insult them they are just conservatives. Mayor Daley appears to be a Republicrat in his governing phislosophy.

Dillard did himself some good with me. I think he might be a good Republican candidate for Governor. better than anyone who ran last time, other than Rauschenberger, whom I respect despite his conservatism.

Comment by Captain America Wednesday, Jun 27, 07 @ 11:22 am
Obama has “bi-partisan” appeal? Oh yeah…. with the liberal Dick Durbin faction, the conservative Harry Reid faction, and the moderate Jessie Jackson faction.

Comment by omg Wednesday, Jun 27, 07 @ 11:36 am
I agree with Wumpus. But Paul may be able to help Rocco with some things like how to organize, how to go door to door, and how to recruit local businesses.

Paul Froehlich (D-Cash Money) switched not on principle, but because he thinks he’s saving his own skin.

Since he couldn’t get Carl Hansen, Terry Parke, or David McSweeney elected, he decided to take a walk and blame the party for his ineptness.

The FIRST people may have always had a problem with current leadership of the party, but they never walked out on it when the going got tough. He complained about the blog that was set up to attack him during his primary, but a lot of what was said on there seemed to ring true.

If you want to see how truly opposed he is to President Bush, go here:

http://www.stargop.org/

If this weren’t so sad, I’d be laughing!

This is the last post I make about Paul Froehlich. I think I’ve made my point.

Comment by Dieter Wednesday, Jun 27, 07 @ 11:51 am
Large law firms are nothing other than influence peddlers.

For Kirk, win or lose, Obama stays a US Senator.

Interest groups pay a lot of money to people who can set up meetings with US Senators or their legislative assistants.

After this, Obama will accept calls from Kirk.

Comment by True Observer Wednesday, Jun 27, 07 @ 12:19 pm
It’s interesting - all these people are blasting Froehlich for jumping parties in order to “save his own skin”, which they see as an knock on Froehlich. To me its amazing that an incumbent would think he’s safer switching parties than relying on his own party to help him out in a swing district.

Switching parties is a significant risk - even if his district is trending blue. If Republicans want to attack Froehlich as only interested in self-preservation, that’s an indictment of their own party’s campaign-season leadership.

Comment by Underdog Wednesday, Jun 27, 07 @ 1:21 pm
Dieter, I agree. I disagree with the cowardly tactics used by First, best or whatever they want to call themselves tomorrow, but PF has proven them right.

As for Parke, captains walked for Parke. Hansen did okay in Schaumburg, his problem was his home of Elk Grove. Schneider was an energetic guy who outcampaigned Hansen. Signs were everywhere, mailers were frequent and good (although innaccurate and dishonest) and got outcampaigned, point blank. Captains also worked for McSweeney, but some of his positions made me say what! Plus, Bean was around and voted like a moderate.

Perhaps Paul will now run for Dem COmmitteeman. Fortune falls into Rocco’s lap once again. Crespo won without Rocco’s help and he gained the state rep seat along with (?) number of township seats with the flipping of the friggin committeeman/rep.

I like Paul, but cannot trust him. I hate first and will not join them. I am SOL, I supposed.

Comment by Wumpus Wednesday, Jun 27, 07 @ 1:23 pm
PS Who will be the Schaumburg Township Committeeman, Lyon(s), Bob? Is Totten(R-Ryan) healthy?

Comment by Wumpus Wednesday, Jun 27, 07 @ 1:24 pm
politicians like Obama, Dillard, Jim Thompson, etc.. who can set aside partisan differences and get things done in the best interest of everyone. The immigration bill in would be a prime example

But, of course, a REAL bi-partisan approach there would be to SUPPORT the grand compormise, as McCain and Kennedy are doing, against all comers. I dont’ like the compromise, but I truly respect McCain for risking it all to support it. Kennedy is also, but it’s not like he has anything to lose.

Obama on the other hand has offered up a poison pill amendment. That is not being bi-partisan, it’s really looking to the primaries. No leadership at all.

What I have against O is that he TALKS a good talk, but when it comes to action or voting time, it’s a different story.

Comment by Pat collins Wednesday, Jun 27, 07 @ 2:15 pm
dear underdog… a risk switching parties? it’s his only chance to collect that state-pension-for-life and continue to line his pockets… staying republican was no risk at all … he was gonna be gone… after p^$$ing off every republican from MO to IN.

Comment by omg Wednesday, Jun 27, 07 @ 3:12 pm
Cross-posted at Illinoize:

1. Terry Parke’s voting record was his own worst enemy. Parke’s 100% Pro-Gun, 100% Anti-Choice, 100% pro-insurance industry voting record was out of touch with suburban voters. He was hammered for it by the Crespo/Madigan campaign operation, and its the reason the Chicago Tribune handed Crespo the endorsement.

2. The district, it is a changin’. Parke walked the conservative line when it came to immigrant issues, enabling Crespo, a Latino, to mobilize the district’s rapidly growing Latino population — and other immigrants. According to the 2000 Census, Hanover Park is 27% Latino, 25% of the households in Schaumburg speak a language other than English at home, and in Hoffman Estates 30% of households are non-English speakers.

3. Parke spent money like Paris Hilton. Parke outspent Crespo $380K to $130K, but a closer look at Parke’s filings with the State Board of Elections raises serious questions about Parke’s resource management abilities. Parke spent $133,884 on a single Elmhurst consultant in five months, over $8,000 on newspaper ads (always a waste of money), over $3,500 on t-shirts, emery boards and other trinkets, nearly $2,500 in donations to local business groups, and over $3,300 on pizza and other food (one pizza party ran up a nearly $600 tab). As Burt Natarus proved, you can raise all the money you want, but if you spend it like Paris Hilton, it ain’t gonna help your re-election efforts.

4. Cross bailed on Parke. The House Republican Organization made a total of $40,000 in contributions to Parke’s Tier One race, mainly for staff, even though Terry Parke was telling Statehouse types back in the Spring that he would be Madigan’s #1 target. By contrast, HRO spent over $200K on Aaron Schock’s Tier One race in 2004 and a whopping $530,000 over six months trying to push John Caveletto over Kurt Granberg. Parke barely got more help than newcomer Sandy Cole did the same year, for a Tier Two race.

5. There’s no evidence of voter suppression. The attack on Froehlich is that his organization laid down on Terry Parke and failed to get out the GOP vote. However, according to the State Board of Elections, voter turnout was up by 7% in 2006 and 1,300 more ballots were cast (compared to 2002, the previous non-presidential election). Interestingly, Jesse Macro, Parke’s Democratic opponent in 2002, spent only $16,000 and got 7,140 votes without an ounce of help from Madigan. It’s not difficult to understand why increasing spending on a race tenfold, sending in top notch staff and precinct captains would add 3100 votes four years later.

Finally, but most importantly, even if Froehlich is responsible for Parke’s departure, its a little hypocritical for House Republicans to criticize him since not one of their caucus misses him. “Despised” is not too strong a word to describe how many of his former colleagues felt about Parke, especially his suburban colleagues, and especially female lawmakers. They used words ranging from “creepy” to stuff that can’t be reprinted to describe him. Just as telling, despite decades of carrying water for the insurance industry and other business groups, not one single statehouse lobbyist has offered Parke a job, despite his months of searching.

Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Wednesday, Jun 27, 07 @ 4:05 pm
Rich, that link to Illinois Reason really should’ve gone to Hiram. I was just riffing off his Wurfwhile post.

Comment by Rob_N Wednesday, Jun 27, 07 @ 4:14 pm
BTW, Beth Coulson and several other suburban lawmakers endorsed Obama over his GOP opponent for the U.S. Senate, so Dillard’s primary endorsement is hardly an earth-shattering turn of events.

Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Wednesday, Jun 27, 07 @ 4:34 pm
I can’t comment anymore at ILlinoze. I tried to get an account there, etc. Anyone figure that out yet?

Parke
I agree the Pro-gun likely hurt, but can’t imagine real people care about insurance (I assume you mean tort reform). Conservatives need to take the gun thing head on, not duck it.

district changing

Which is why LESS immigration is needed, not more. How much did Bush’s push for amnesty help any R?

The rest is very interesting.

Comment by Pat collins Wednesday, Jun 27, 07 @ 4:37 pm
other suburban lawmakers endorsed Obama over his GOP opponent for the U.S. Senate

Not exactly a typical scenario.

Comment by Pat collins Wednesday, Jun 27, 07 @ 4:38 pm
Of course the Trib is fine with Dillard’s support of Obama. It’s exactly the same flip-flop they’ve done. Obama has become far more popular than either of them and both are grabbing at his coattails in hopes of remaining relevent.

Comment by Mrs. Fisher's Chips Wednesday, Jun 27, 07 @ 7:04 pm
YDD, thanks for illustrating my point. PArke ran his own campaign and members of Star simply walked precincts for him. Parke got outsmarted, outcampaigned, etc. If you saw the Woman’s suffrage mailer, it was classic.

Paul was always one to have a diverse organization. He sought to bring non traditional members to the party. That is what is needed. e is far from perfect, but he had a hardworking grooup and had good efforts/ideas despite not toting the party line.

Describing him as creepy is being nice from what I hear. I do know that despite Parke being close to the Totten people and never really supporting STAR (until he needed them), Paul never turned on him or supported Crespo like he could have.

Comment by Wumpus Wednesday, Jun 27, 07 @ 9:03 pm