Wagner, LOL I am not going to Run for any office... But do not mind assisting a candidate who I feel will uphold that office they are running for!
Your right I had not responded back to this and my thoughts on this one.. the reason I asked this question in a public forum is because I received an email on a Political figure who is taking heat from his own party affiliations for a DUI charge that was well over 10 yrs ago. and has since been upstanding as what I read about this person. He is asking for assistance from Voters as he is stepping up to run for Governor of my State. and from what has happened to previous Republican Governors of my State the Republicans do not have a very good track record, but needless to say the Republican parry of the State are not wanting this man to be their frontrunner for this coming elections.. either case I felt he has proven himself by his current track record in this State Representative roll and his past should not reflect badly as the Republican Party is trying to portray him. I will forward you his email and also post a bit of it here below.
_______________________________________
Rauschenberger Fires Back At Intimidation Tactics from GOP Old Guard's Poster Boy; Challenges Rank-and-File to join him in fight for the soul of the ILGOP
7/11/2005 1:11:00 PM
Sen. Steve Rauschenberger (R-Elgin) said today he would "not be beaten up in a back alley" in response to a note he received from IL GOP National Committeeman Bob Kjellander calling his character into question. Rauschenberger responded to an issue that has been part of the last several campaigns he has run---his 1994 arrest for DUI. Calling it a "terrible mistake" and something he has taken responsibility for and learned from, Rauschenberger pointed to his record in the General Assembly since that time and his support of 21 different pieces of legislation supported by Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD).
Rauschenberger used the opportunity to challenge party faithful to do a "mirror test" and decide what kind of Republican Party they want in Illinois. "Middle class families in Illinois, of which my family is one, deserve clarity from the Republican Party. We must provide a discernable contrast from the Blagojevich administration and its propaganda machine. But for our ideas to matter, for them to get a fair hearing among the electorate, we as Republicans need to reconnect with our grassroots and set an ethical standard to be copied rather than eschewed," said Rauschenberger.
Read his full statement to the press below.
===
I am here today to challenge Illinoisans generally and Illinois Republicans specifically.
Both the leadership of my party and the millions of fellow rank-and-file self-identified Republicans in Illinois need to decide what kind of party we are going to have in Illinois. Millions more Illinoisans must decide what kind of state government they want.
It's fashionable to think that political campaigns are about who has the most money on hand to buy television ads in the last 90 days of the election.
My challenge today is for Illinois Republicans and Illinoisans more generally to engage in the campaign for the future of Illinois, commonly referred to as the gubernatorial campaign, today-nine months from the primary and 16 months from the general election.
Why is today the occasion for such a challenge of conscience?
I have spent the last thirteen years in the State Senate working diligently with my colleagues and my party because I believe it means something to be a Republican. I believe in the Republican philosophy of limited government, free enterprise and personal responsibility.
It means something to me to be a standard bearer for the Republican party and, for those candidates I supported and for whom I raised money, I believe it means something to them as well. That's why I am about the only Republican in the state of Illinois who can put Rep. Rosemary Mulligan on the same endorsement list with Senators Ed Petka and Chris Lauzen, as I did last year when I ran for the U.S. Senate.
I believe people can have ideological differences and yet serve with honor.
I have spent my time in the State Senate and within my party as a consensus builder, but there are some with whom a consensus cannot be built because they want something fundamentally different out of their involvement with party politics and state government than I want.
Somewhere along the way, certain persons holding leadership positions in our party lost or abandoned the notion of service with honor.
One of them is set for a federal corruption trial in September.
I was reminded of this last week when I received a response from Illinois Republican National Committeeman Bob Kjellander to a direct mail fundraising letter sent out from my campaign to prospective Republican donors.
Mr. Kjellander took the time to respond to the solicitation.each of you has a copy of his response. His response, by the way, was discovered by my 78-year old mother who opens all of the campaign mail so I can assure you of the authenticity of this document, the original of which I have here.
Mr. Kjellander's response, in addition to declining to make a contribution, was to offer the following comment, "Anybody who gets behind the wheel of a car drunk doesn't belong in the state senate, much less the governor's mansion."
In light of his proposed litmus test for the Illinois State Senate and for Governor, Mr. Kjellander's comments lead to many questions beginning with whether or not he believes President George W. Bush and Vice President ****** Cheney "belong" in the positions they currently hold?
However, I am not here to argue moral relativism. The issue Mr. Kjellander raises is nothing new.
Ten years ago I made a mistake which I take full responsibility for today and have taken full responsibility for in the numerous campaigns in which it has been raised by my opponents and the media since its occurrence, including the U.S. Senate race last year.
I also note that I have done more than just apologize for my error in judgment. Over the intervening ten years, I have built a strong record on road safety, voting for 21 separate pieces of legislation supported by Mothers Against Drunk Driving, including the lowering of the state's legal limit to drive to .08.
I have always been willing to stand up and answer the tough questions.
This is more than I can say for Mr. Kjellander and his continued unwillingness to answer questions about what he did to earn his controversial $809,000 fee for supporting the Governor's $10 billion bond scheme in 2003. Such arrangements as Mr. Kjellander's have now come under the scrutiny of the bond industry's governing entities who are seeking to ban the use of consultants like Mr. Kjellander.
The reason I have brought Mr. Kjellander's correspondence to light is not to rehash questions that have been raised about his business dealings. I leave those questions to various juries and grand juries.
The real reasons I bring this to light today are two fold.
First, I will not be beaten up in a back alley.
Mr. Kjellander and certain "combine" elements of the Republican party, as one Chicago newspaper columnist has described them, represent one of the hurdles in front of my forthcoming candidacy for Governor.
Mr. Kjellander's correspondence represents the attitude he takes towards independent Republicans. It's the same attitude he took towards former U.S. Senator Peter Fitzgerald.
He may believe he can act with impunity because of his friends in Washington, but I am here today to make it clear that I am not intimidated and I won't be intimidated.
Furthermore, as long as Mr. Kjellander is allowed to hold a leadership position in the Illinois Republican Party, he too should expect to be held publicly accountable. I'm happy to operate in the sunlight and so should be our party's leaders.
The second reason I bring this forward is because, as I mentioned, I believe strongly that the each and every Illinois Republican needs to do a mirror check and decide what kind of party they want to call home.
A poll my campaign commissioned in April of this year found nearly half of likely Republican primary voters do NOT believe the Republican party and its leadership is honest and ethical. This is a problem.
Simply calling for "unity" without defining what it is that we are supposed to unify around does not get the Republican party where it needs to be, it simply glosses over the structural problems. If we keep burying our heads in the sand, the Democrats are going to keep kicking our behinds.
No organization can exist and effectively organize without trust between the leadership and its membership.
This is fundamental to the future relevance of the Illinois GOP and to the future prospects of a state government that dispenses with the Enron-model of corporate management.
I am not by my nature a confrontational guy or someone who likes to wave a flag. I like to work with people to get things done and to advance the flag.
However, it is time for people to stand up and say, "Enough!"
And if it takes the so-called calculator-carrying, budget expert to do it, then I am ready, willing and able.
Middle class families in Illinois, of which my family is one, deserve clarity from the Republican Party. We must provide a discernable contrast from the Blagojevich administration and its propaganda machine.
But for our ideas to matter, for them to get a fair hearing among the electorate, we as Republicans need to reconnect with our grassroots and set an ethical standard to be copied rather than eschewed.
If people don't trust you, then it doesn't matter what you say because you won't be believed. Governor Blagojevich is providing living proof of this.
The 2006 election is a critical one. The Republican Party has a tremendous opportunity to be the party of ideas in Illinois again, just as it reclaimed that mantle in 2000 at the national level.
But we must decide, and decide soon, what it means to be a Republican in Illinois. And, as Illinoisans of all political stripes, we must decide, and decide soon, what it is that we expect from our state government.
I have made my own personal decision on both of those questions and will be announcing that decision in a couple of weeks.
No amount of derision or back-biting from discredited elements of the Illinois political establishment will dissuade me from providing a vision for where I believe our party and our state must go in order that both can once again be rooted in principled leadership and achieve results for the citizens of Illinois worthy of our the state's moniker as the "Land of Lincoln."
I am hopeful that many Republicans and many more Illinoisans see things as I do and will rise to this challenge to change Illinois' political culture the only way it can be done-together.
Daily Herald's Chris Bailey lauds Rauschenberger for stand in defense of private property
Wrote Bailey,
".Rauschenberger, the Illinois state senator from Elgin who hopes to be governor, almost immediately after the ruling called for state legislation to impede any private property snatching to give it to developers. 'The idea that a well-intentioned local board on a Wednesday night can disappropriate your property is appalling,' Rauschenberger said. "
Read Chris Bailey's full column from July 10 below.
===
For 18 years, I have lived in one of the prettiest neighborhoods on Elgin's east side, a half-block from the picturesque Lords Park pavilion and lagoons. Thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court, I'm seeing this neighborhood of older, small to medium-size single-family homes set amid century-old trees in a different light. I'm seeing it through the eyes of developers .
It doesn't take much to imagine a hill full of tony townhouses overlooking one of the city's magnificent, century-old parks. Minus many of the trees, no doubt. Trees interfere with construction and profit, and they are a nightmare of sorts in the fall. But, of course, the real estate taxes those townhouses would generate would far exceed that generated by my neighbors and me. We, according to the Supreme Court, are expendable. And the Elgin City Council, Dave Kaptain excepted, has already proved what it thinks of private property rights when they interfere with a grand civic plan.
Which is why Steve Rauschenberger and Ed Plaza are my heroes of the moment. Rauschenberger, the Illinois state senator from Elgin who hopes to be governor, almost immediately after the ruling called for state legislation to impede any private property snatching to give it to developers.
"The idea that a well-intentioned local board on a Wednesday night can disappropriate your property is appalling," Rauschenberger said.
Plaza is the Lake in the Hills village president and president of the McHenry County Council of Governments. He will next week be presenting a resolution to his board that declares the village will not be party to such land grabs for development purposes and will urge the county leadership group to address the issue, too.
"This needs to be addressed so residents don't feel threatened," Plaza said. "I can't imagine there would be any objection."
Well, I can. But I'm a cynic. Rauschenberger has been accused of using the issue to help get elected as governor, and Plaza often has been accused of self-promotional grandstanding. Frankly, I don't care if both are guilty. Every wannabe governor ought to be talking about this issue. And every local elected official ought to be reassuring residents, publicly and in writing, that they won't perpetrate such an outrage, even if the Supreme Court says they can.
Rauschenberger has suggested legislation that would require municipalities to win approval of such development-related takings from both houses of the General Assembly and the governor. Cynic that I am, I don't find that exactly comforting.
"I trust you guys even less than I do the city council," I told him, prompting a huge laugh. "Can't we just ban this? Seems like the court left the door open for something like that."
"My first choice would be a better Supreme Court decision," he said. "Second best would be a state constitutional amendment. Third, we could do a prohibition, I suppose. But we have a prohibition against unfunded mandates already. And any time somebody wants something, we just pass an exemption to the prohibition."
Fourth on his list was his own suggestion, which he said was colored by pragmatism about being in the minority in Springfield, and by his belief that it might be accomplished quickly.
He says developers should pay heavily to take someone's property, and that price should be determined by the property owner, not a coercive government. Because of the disruption of lives, that price would be much higher than market value.
"That's what they ought to have to pay," Rauschenberger said. Indeed, almost anyone can be bought. I could be bought, even though I really like my pretty little neighborhood.
Try to take it from me, though, and you'd have to disarm me first, using the police officers whose salaries I've been paying for two decades. And they'd have to drag me into the street the city has dug up dozens of times in those 18 years, but paved only once. Not a problem, methinks, the new developer-owner would face.
