Progress Illinois

As ABC 7's Andy Shaw put it: "Steven Sauerberg has to be considered the longest long shot in America." And as Sauerberg began his general election campaign against Sen. Dick Durbin on Wednesday, the GOP challenger offered up some comedy gold:

SAUERBERG: I think Barack Obama will probably endorse us, I would assume. You know, certainly we represent change. We represent some of the issues that Senator Obama likes.

How he kept a straight face, I do not know.

While Sauerberg's comments about Obama were (hopefully) a joke, his statements on various other issues were about as nonsensical as the assumption that all "change" is created equal.

(More after the jump ...)

Earmarks

During the press conference, Sauerburg simultaneously railed against Durbin's Illinois-related earmarks and criticized the Senator for failing to bring home enough federal funds. From the Tribune:

Sauerberg was asked if that message wasn’t mixed, given that he was criticizing Durbin for not bringing enough federal money to Illinois while also saying that such earmarks must be halted. Sauerberg replied Durbin must do more for Illinois through routine spending.

"I don’t intend to benefit Illinois from bringing home pork," Sauerberg said. "I intend to benefit Illinois by bringing home routine, transparent legislation that will bring capital improvements to this state."

Granted, there are many legitimate reasons to oppose earmarks. But Sauerberg's suggestion that Durbin is somehow not being "transparent" is false. Indeed, Durbin's Senate office regularly issues press releases listing the latest funding he's secured for Illinois (for examples, see here, here, and here).

Lobbyists

Sauerberg's position on lobbying is also, well, curious.

As this video of the press conference shows, he made a big fuss over Durbin's personal connections to lobbyists. Here's transcript of the exchange (from about the 6:40 mark):

SHAW: Maybe I missed something along the way, but what is this unholy business that the Durbin family is involved in? No one ever accused Durbin -- he's been accused of certain things, but enriching himself personally has never been one of them. What are he and his family doing that is unconscionable?

SAUERBERG: I think we see all through Washington --

SHAW: I mean, does he have his wife on the payroll? His kid on the payroll?

SAUERBERG: He has -- his family are lobbyists.

SHAW: And that's bad?

SAUERBERG: Yes, I'm against that. I don't think we have any business having U.S. Senators having their family being lobbyists, because they're peddling their influence and access and that's inappropriate.

Lobbyists -- you know, lobbyists are problematic enough for us. When they start getting involved as family members of influential people in Washington, I think that's very wrong.

Now, contrary to Sauerberg's broad claim that Durbin's "family are lobbyists," the truth is that only Durbin's wife is one. More importantly, she lobbies the Illinois state government -- not the federal government where her husband works.

Nonetheless, the mere title of "lobbyist" is apparently beyond the pale in Sauerberg's book. So much so that he must have pledged not to take any campaign contributions from them, right? Think again:

SHAW: And you won't take contributions from lobbyists? Or you will? How are you going to handle that?

SAUERBERG: I'm not sure that we won't take contributions from lobbyists. I'm simply saying that my family's not going to be lobbyists. And I think that clearly is wrong.

Iraq

For all his demagoguing about earmarks and lobbyist family members, Sauerberg doesn't bring the same urgency to his position on Iraq, which will cost Illinois taxpayers $8.4 billion this fiscal year. Take a look at his non-answer on the Iraq situation (video can be seen here, at the 2:35 mark):

"Right now I support an effort to conclude this war in a reasonable manner that leads to a stable Iraq, if that is at all possible. Certainly, if that does not appear possible at any point in time, there's no point to sacrificing any more financial -- any more money or any more lives here. But if we can move this to a stable situation it's in the best in interest of the people of this state and this country."

That's a big "if." What it's not is an actual position.

When asked whether he would support beginning to withdraw troops early next year -- as many Democrats have proposed -- Sauerberg gave the following answer:

"I would wait to see the situation on the ground. I would wait to see what the situation is politically. And I would take it from there."

Good luck with that position in Illinois, Steve. A January Tribune poll indicated that over 80 percent of the state's residents would like to begin withdrawing some or all U.S. troops from Iraq "now."