Steve Sauerberg

Video: Durbin Responds To Sauerberg's Attack On His Patriotism

Josh Kalven — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 12:57:37 -0700

Last week, the news coming out of Sen. Dick Durbin and GOP challenger Steve Sauerberg's appearance before the Tribune editorial board was that Sauerberg "backtracked" from his attacks on the senator's patriotism. Courtesy of the Tribune website, we now have video of the full exchange. And Sauerberg really looks ridiculous. Watch it:

When questioned about his patriotism charges, Sauerberg first attributes them to faceless residents of Illinois, whose sentiments he is simply repeating. He says that he himself has "no idea" if Durbin is patriotic, adding, "He probably is a patriotic guy, I would think." When one of the board members presses him further, Sauerberg says of his charge against Durbin, "Maybe that's fair, maybe it's not." But if it might not be fair, why he is repeating it over and over on the campaign trail?

When the discussion turns to support for our veterans, Sauerberg compliments his opponent's work on the issue. Durbin responds, "Pretty good for an unpatriotic senator." Sauerberg answers, "It is pretty good for an unpatriotic senator." The expression on Durbin's face says it all.

Later, the same board member asks Sauerberg about his separate charge that Durbin's first TV ad "exploit[s] our troops." He responds, "Maybe that ... was a little bit too strong. I think I may take that one back a little bit." Huh?

Finally, Sauerberg questions whether "Durbin is responsible" in any way for the scandalous conditions at the Veterans Administration hospital in Marion, IL -- an issue that Durbin has worked tirelessly to investigate and remedy. At this point all Durbin can do is shake his head in disbelief.

The Tribune reported that, following the meeting, the two shook hands and Sauerberg stated, “I apologize for any offense.” But after all his hedging and hiding, his backtracking and apologizing, Sauerberg returned to the well at a debate Thursday night. From the Tribune report:

Only days after backtracking on questioning Democratic U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin's patriotism, Republican challenger Steve Sauerberg reheated the issue Thursday by accusing him of actions that "emboldens the enemy" and "puts our soldiers in danger" in Iraq. [...]

[I]n the last debate before the Nov. 4 election, Sauerberg told an Illinois Radio Network audience that he was only voicing a frequent concern of voters by questioning Durbin’s patriotism.

"I have not apologized for my criticism of him on this issue. I did apologize for hurting his feelings," said Sauerberg, a "amily practice physician from Willowbrook. “I don’t want to hurt his feelings about this issue, but I do not apologize for bringing to the attention of the people of the United States of America his behaviors that I think have probably led to possibly more troop hazard in Iraq than if he hadn’t made them. This emboldens the enemy. This probably puts our soldiers in danger." [...]

"You're digging this hole so deep, now suggesting that comments that I made may have made it more dangerous for our troops in Iraq," said Durbin, a two-term senator. "I will tell you doctor, I don’t know where the bottom is anymore in your campaign. … I know you're new to this business. I know you're new to politics, but I will tell you, common decency still works, not only in politics but in medicine and real life."

If you're going to make incendiary charges from a stage, you better be strong enough to stand behind them when sitting elbow-to-elbow with your opponent before a small group of respected journalists and opinion-makers. But watching Sauerberg wilt in the Tribune editorial board meeting, then lash out again at the debate 48 hours later, one word comes to mind.

Weak.

"The Refuge Of Scoundrels"

Josh Kalven — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 07:17:00 -0700

In a heated exchange in front of the Tribune editorial board yesterday, Dick Durbin fought back against Steve Sauerberg's recurring claim that the Illinois Senator "undermined the troops" with his controversial 2005 floor statement regarding a report on the acts carried out by U.S. interrogators at Guantanamo Bay. The Tribune's Rick Pearson reports:

"OK, I questioned [Durbin's patriotism]. And maybe that's fair. Maybe it's not," Sauerberg said. He said Durbin's comments and other actions are raised by the public along the campaign trail and "undermine our troops, their ability to fight, our nation's credibility in the world."

"I'm going to question a lot of things about my opponent, his positions," Durbin shot back at Sauerberg, his voice filling with emotion. "I would never question your patriotism. I think that is the refuge of scoundrels. I think what you have done here, to raise a question as to whether I love this country is the lowest form of politics. The lowest."

"I apologize if you're upset with me and I understand, but the fact of the matter is, you shouldn't say these things," Sauerberg said. "People are hurt. They're still hurt." The Republican said every veteran he has spoken with holds Durbin "in great disdain."

"You need to meet more veterans," Durbin said, pointing out he recently received the endorsement of the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

Sauerberg Says Senators Have No "Impact" On Reproductive Choice

Josh Kalven — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 07:11:42 -0700

WTTW's Chicago Tonight hosted a debate between Sen. Dick Durbin and GOP challenger Steve Sauerberg last night. When the topic turned to social issues, Sauerberg focused primarily on his "personal involvement in crisis pregnancy centers." But not before dropping this little ditty: "[A] U.S. senator doesn't have any impact on any issues in regards to choice versus -- any legislation in that area to speak of."

Well, that's ... just ... not true at all.

Watch it:

If the Senate really has no "impact" on reproductive choice, why would pro-life groups have contributed nearly $6 million to congressional candidates since 1990?

It's certainly true that -- when it comes to overturning Roe v. Wade -- the make-up of the Supreme Court is paramount (though the Senate plays an integral role in determining that composition). But beyond that, Congress can still take legislative action to restrict abortion rights. In the extreme, they can pass a constitutional amendment banning abortion. They can also pass measures in an attempt to force the Supreme Court's hand. As Allison Stevens explains in an article on the competing Partial Birth Abortion Act and Freedom of Choice Act, a battle over choice is indeed being waged on Capitol Hill:

The legislative counteroffensive marks a new era in Congress in which pro-choice lawmakers are taking the offensive, a contrast to the past dozen years, when Republicans held the reigns of power and presided over a series of legislative efforts to restrict access to abortion.

The ban upheld by the court on Wednesday sailed through Congress in October 2003. With the court ruling to uphold it, the law is expected to take effect within the next month.

The House backed the measure 281-142; the Senate 64-34. In both chambers a considerable number of Democrats voted for the bill and Bush signed it into law that November. Until Wednesday, it was held back by legal challenges to its lack of a health exception for the woman.

Under the law, a woman would still be able to access certain kinds of second trimester abortions but would not necessarily be able to have the banned procedure, even if her doctor considered it the safest and best for her individual circumstances. Doctors found guilty of breaking the law could face up to two years in prison.

For more on the debate, check out Rick Pearson's report in the Tribune.

Debating The Debates

Josh Kalven — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 08:40:09 -0700

Lots of congressional debate news this week, so let's run through it all.

First, 11th District GOP candidate Marty Ozinga is complaining about the choice of Southtown Star columnist Kristen McQueary as the moderator of a September 25 debate between he and Democrat Debbie Halvorson. From a campaign press release posted by Capitol Fax:

It would be hard to imagine a presidential debate moderated by MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann. Similarly, we cannot imagine a congressional debate moderated by Kristen McQueary. [...]

We propose one of two options to rectify this problem: 1) for balance, have fellow Southtown Star opinion columnist Fran Eaton to serve as the comoderator with Mrs. McQueary; OR 2) have an objective news reporter familiar with the race, such as the Joliet Herald News’ Patrick Ferrell, to serve as the sole moderator.

Rich Miller effectively skewers the Ozinga's campaign suggestion that McQueary needs to balanced by a right-wing figure such as Eaton. He concludes: "What a buncha whiners."

Meanwhile, in the 6th Congressional District, GOP Rep. Peter Roskam has apparently refused to debate Democratic challenger Jill Morgenthaler. From a press release:

Morgenthaler said, “Peter Roskam likes to talk to voters in his pre-scripted 'virtual town halls' but will not answer the hard questions on his record or on the issues. I have agreed to every debate and joint appearance request that has come our way, and Peter Roskam has continued to hide. This is a critical year and the voters of the 6th District deserve the opportunity to hear where the candidates stand on the issues that affect their day-to-day lives.”

To date, Roskam, has refused to appear with Colonel Morgenthaler in any venue.

The release goes on to point out that, during his 2006 race for the open 6th District seat, Roskam accused then-Democratic candidate Tammy Duckworth of ducking several community debates. Duckworth did agree to four debates with Roskam prior to Election Day that year.

Finally, Sen. Dick Durbin and GOP challenger Steve Sauerberg have agreed to two debates: one on October 6 on WTTW's Chicago Tonight and the other on October 9 at Knox College.

Strangest. Campaign. Ever.

Josh Kalven — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 10:19:55 -0700

We've extensively documented the perplexing twists and turns of GOP challenger Steve Sauerberg's U.S. Senate campaign. So I suppose we have to add this extremely odd web ad to the mix:

It should be noted that this video is nowhere to be found on Sauerberg's website. In fact, the most recent item posted to the site's "Multimedia" page is a Budweiser ad saluting our troops.

(H/T Capitol Fax)

Sauerberg's Desperate Patriotism Schtick

Adam Doster — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 08:21:31 -0700

GOP Senate candidate Steve Sauerberg -- down in the polls and low on cash -- has not run what one could call a smooth campaign. Even fellow conservatives are starting to get angry. Yesterday at Illinois Review, Curt Mercadante complained that Sauerberg hasn't put forth "an aggressive e-strategy" since winning his party's primary, which could have helped raise money, recruit volunteers, and communicate the campaign's message efficiently.

But he's got one last bullet in the chamber: the culture wars!

In the Republican underdog role against two-term veteran [Dick] Durbin, Sauerberg, a physician from Willowbrook, repeatedly has sought to label his opponent as too liberal. On one of his campaign’s Web sites, Sauerberg noted Durbin’s opposition to a Constitutional amendment to ban flag-burning and said the nation’s founders never included one "because they never had to deal with ultra-liberal Americans who hate their own country."

Asked whether he was referring to Durbin, Sauerberg said Thursday, "I think he’s an ultra liberal. Whether he hates his own country, I cannot determine for the gentleman.” Sauerberg said voters "wonder a lot" about Durbin’s patriotism.

A Durbin spokesmen says the personal attacks shows a "frustrated" political candidate. It's hard to argue with that, especially considering he doesn't share the values of the majority of Illinois residents and he consistently demonstrates a shallow knowledge of public policy. From the same Tribune article:

Labeling the nation's energy problems a top voter concern, Sauerberg restated his call for a federal gas-tax holiday as the GOP’s presumptive presidential nominee, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, has proposed. Sauerberg said money lost to the federal highway construction fund could be replaced by finding "another wasteful program that government runs."

Asked to name a specific wasteful government program to cut, Sauerberg said, "I can’t answer that" and apologized, before proposing a freeze on federal hiring or a 2 percent cut in federal agency spending.

Sauerberg In Denial

Adam Doster — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 07:13:08 -0700

After reading Steve Sauerberg's latest press release, one might get the impression that the Senate race in Illinois could be tight this cycle:

The polling, conducted by Southern Outreach, an Atlanta-based firm, shows Durbin struggling to break 50% in the uninformed ballot matchup against Sauerberg. In a head to head with Dr. Sauerberg, Durbin leads 52% to 35%. Outside of the Chicago-metro area, Durbin fails to garner 50% and only leads Sauerberg 47% to 40%.

"Senator Durbin is a household name in Illinois with an $8 million war chest and is the second-ranking member of the United States Senate," continued Hage. "The fact that he starts this campaign barely over 50% is a sign of real weakness."

Back in the reality-based community, the picture becomes a bit clearer. A non-partisan Rasmussen poll released last Thursday shows Durbin with a 61-to-27 percent advantage over Sauerberg. Democrats are currently given a 98.3 percent chance of winning Illinois’ Senate race, too. And this was before Sauerberg's dismal second quarter fundraising totals were released:

With Sauerberg's latest campaign filing, there are signs he has little to take his campaign on the offensive. And he may not be able to raise significant cash or put more of his own money into the effort.

As of July 1, Sauerberg, had about $1,500 less in his campaign fund than he had three months earlier.

And that April total of $1.07 million was virtually the entire result of the physician digging into personal assets, which he has since not done.

The fund's quarterly income of donations and interest totaled about $102,000, with expenses about $1,500 higher.

I guess there's still hope for that Obama endorsement ...

The "Last Shred"

Josh Kalven — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 09:12:15 -0700

Crain's Greg Hinz takes a look at Steve Sauerberg's race for U.S. Senate and concludes: "Unless something changes fast, 2008 will become the year in which the Illinois GOP lost its last shred of relevance." From the column:

In most states, electing a U.S. senator is a big deal. Campaigns clash and TV ad wars erupt. Washington big shots drop by to endorse. The winner gets a six-year membership in the world's most exclusive club, don'tcha know.

It used to be that way in Illinois. Remember Carol Moseley Braun against Peter Fitzgerald and Alan Dixon? Or, a bit earlier, Chuck Percy vs. Alex Seith. Barack Obama against, well, who cares? It was Barack Obama.

So, quick, tell me who the Republicans have put up this year against incumbent Illinois Sen. Richard Durbin — the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate and quite possibly the majority leader of that body not too far in the future.
If you can't recall the name, you have lots of company.

Hinz goes on to assert that Sauerberg "will not embarrass the party like the jaw-dropping Alan Keyes did." However, it's worth noting that Sauerberg has run a rather perplexing campaign so far.

Early in the year, it was clear that something was wrong when he bought ads on liberal websites declaring: "We must stop liberal Dick Durbin." Then, at a press conference in April, he said with a seemingly straight face: "I think Barack Obama will probably endorse us." Then in June, he challenged Durbin to "commit" to retaining U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald -- even though both Durbin and Obama have never wavered in their support of the prosecutor. Most recently, his campaign put out a radio spot that violated the Federal Election Commission guidelines on advertising disclaimers.

It's not "Keyesian" embarassment, but still ...

Sauerberg Flunks Campaign Disclaimers 101 (UPDATED)

Josh Kalven — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:30:53 -0700

Apparently, Steve Sauerberg's Senate campaign team needs to bone up on their Federal Election Commission regulations. Here's the radio ad they released this week:

Internal mp3

Here's the problem with it:

In the disclaimer at the beginning, Sauerberg says: "Paid for by Sauerberg for U.S. Senate." That's the language campaigns should use on mailers and other printed materials. But when it comes to radio ads, here's what the FEC requires:

A radio broadcast must include an audio statement that is spoken by the candidate. The statement must identify the candidate, and state that he or she has approved the communication.

So, Sauerberg is actually required by law to say something like: "I'm Steve Sauerberg and I approve this message." Whoops!

UPDATE: The Sauerberg campaign has replaced the original ad. The new version has a proper disclaimer:

Internal mp3

Steve Sauerberg, Grasping at Straws

Mose Buchele — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 15:45:27 -0700

At times it's a little painful watching Republican Senate hopeful Steve Sauerberg try to insert himself into our state's political discourse. One day he's bashing "liberal" Dick Durbin in ads on prominent liberal websites, the next he's angling for an Obama endorsement. But Sauerberg is at his most perplexing when he decides to conjure issues out of thin air. That's what happened today when he posted this item at Illinois Review under the headline "Sauerberg Challenges Durbin To Commit To Fitzgerald Retention":

The people of Illinois owe a tremendous thank you to United States Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald and his team of prosecutors for their work on [the Tony Rezko] case. As the next Senator from Illinois, I will recommend, to the next President, that Patrick Fitzgerald by re-appointed, and I would urge Senator Durbin to join me in making this commitment.

Why Sauerberg felt the need to "challenge" Durbin on this issue is anyone's guess. After all, Durbin has consistently supported Fitzgerald as U.S. Attorney since long before his GOP opponent entered Illinois politics.

This is from a press release put out by Durbin and Obama in 2005 -- the last time Fitzergald's term was set to expire:

Illinois Democratic Senators Dick Durbin and Barack Obama have been on record since January -- before the White House and City Hall probes heated up -- as wanting Patrick Fitzgerald to stay. [...]

Durbin spokesman Joe Shoemaker said Thursday Durbin "thinks there is no finer attorney than Patrick Fitzgerald. He is honest and thorough.''

Two years later, Durbin brought to light a plan by Justice Department official Kyle Sampson to fire Fitzgerald. Indeed, it was Durbin who thought to ask specifically about the matter during Sampson's appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee. That same year, he grilled then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez on his treatment of Fitzgerald and the DOJ's political firings of U.S. Attorneys. You can watch Durbin stand up for Fitzgerald's office and tear Gonzalez a new one in this delightful video.

Which brings us to Keeping Patrick Fitzgerald. It's a Tribune editorial out today which quotes Obama saying what has said since day one: that he wants Fitzgerald to stay in Illinois. Of course, Durbin and Obama are longtime friends and allies, and Durbin was the first senator to endorse Obama's presidential campaign. It's hard to imagine the senior senator breaking with the junior on the issue of Fitzgerald.