Steve Rauschenberger may be gearing up for another run for statewide office, or a midling spot in a hypothetical McCain administration…
Rauschenberger, the man who helped bring the Alan Keyes Flying Circus to Illinois, has been making the rounds of any ol’ conservative wurlitzer that will have him and our friends at Illinois Review have been dutifully following his trail of breadcrumbs as if he’s actually saying something of note.
His latest quips were printed by the conservative Wall Street Journal, and reveal the sublime irony that is Rauschy, post-State Senate:
“Barack was one of the smartest people I ever worked with, but he was more interested in moving up,” says Republican Steven Rauschenberger, who served with Mr. Obama in the state senate. “I never thought he was very engaged in the state senate, because he didn’t think that much of it.”
First off, that doesn’t explain why State Sen. Barack Obama has so much legislation under his belt and a stint as a committee chair. If he wasn’t “very engaged” why’d he work so hard at it?
Second, this quote is coming from a guy who was otherwise preoccupied in 2004 and 2006 doing … what was it? … ah, yes … running for higher office. Then-State Sen. Rauschenberger ran for that same US Senate seat opening that then-State Sen. Obama ran for and won. (Rauschy lost in the primary, pretty soundly too.) Two years later, Rauschy hadn’t lost that fever and ran for governor. When that was going nowhere, he joined the Ron Gidwitz campaign as the lt. governor add-on. That couple still lost in the primary to Judy Baar Topinka and another fellow who seems to perennially be seeking higher office, Joe Birkett.
Did Rauschy not think that much of the Senate Chambers himself?
What a bunch of hot air.
Update: Rich Miller describes the rantings of Rauschy in more detail, debunking spin after spin. Mr. Miller concludes: “Again, Rauschenberger makes a few very good points, but overall his message seems, well, ‘bitter.’”
9 comments
Comments feed for this article
April 22, 2008 at 9:06 am
The Capitol Fax Blog » Morning Shorts
[...] for the self-promo, but here’s a response to “Rauschenberger vs. Obama: Rounds [...]
April 22, 2008 at 10:08 am
John
“First off, that doesn’t explain why State Sen. Barack Obama has so much legislation under his belt and a stint as a committee chair.”
Well, given that the Rauschenberger comments that you quoted did not address this point, one cannot look to it as any such “explanation.”
However, one can “explain” the Promethean accomplishments that you refer to in a manner that completely dovetails with Rauschenberger’s observations about Barack.
According to several reports, the most notable being from a Texas reporter who covered Chicago South Side politics during the relevant period (google it), when the Democrats captured the Illinois Senate in 2002 and Emil Jones the Senate Presidency, Jones intimated to Clifford Kelley that he was “gonna make myself a U.S. Senator”. The Senator that he decided to “make” turned out to be Barack. Such a move would promote the ambitious Obama to a high profile office befitting his ego, leaving him forever in Jones’ debt, while Jones could have Obama’s state senate seat filled with someone more engaged, or at least more beholden to Jones. In a clever strategy to position Obama to the U.S. Senate, Jones forced state senators under his control to remove their names from bills destined for passage and have them replaced with Obama’s as sponsor. Check the stories. Thus Obama’s lackluster tenure in the General Assembly was magically transformed in less than one year into a “leadership” record matched only by Stephen Douglas.
That “explains” how your fantasy of Obama as a historic legislative leader in Illinois fits Rauschenberger’s reports.
April 22, 2008 at 11:18 am
robnesvacil
John,
I’ve read that reporter’s soliloquy. It sounded much more like a means for the guy to make a national name for himself (however briefly) than actual news reporting. The Heathers at the local sophomore lunch table whisper more newsworthy items to each other than his schlock.
And I never claimed Obama’s tenure in Springfield was “historic”. I’ve already had breakfast this morning so no need for you to put words in my mouth.
Toward that end though, why is it that during their 2004 United States Senate runs then-State Senator Steve Rauschenberger praised then-State Senator Barack Obama? Heck, it was even said that he considered Obama to be “formidable” and that Rauschy thought so highly of him (and, apparently, himself) that Rauschy wanted to debate Obama one-on-one (pre-primary mind you) a la Lincoln-Douglas all across Illinois…
Rauschy was in Springfield 11 years to Obama’s 8 before they both ran for US Senate. Are you really trying to imply that those additional 3 years make some sort of difference — that after 11 years it’s ok to seek that same higher office but not 8?
Both tried running for higher office twice — Rauschy for US Senate and then guv (and sorta guv lite thereafter); Obama for Congress and then US Senate.
Rauschy’s current spin is so much hooey it’s a wonder you’d come here to try and apologize for it.
Then again, maybe you (like Fran Eaton, who keeps pimping Rauschy’s 2008 anti-Obama appearances to and fro), are also involved in the United Republican Fund that Rauschenberger now heads. Does the URF need some donations or something?
Or maybe Rauschenberger is just jealous that Obama actually won higher office and is now in the lead for the highest office in the land, whereas his own attempts at higher office have been futile.
April 23, 2008 at 9:23 am
The Capitol Fax Blog » Rauschenberger vs. Obama
[...] Quote of the Day: Irony, thy name is Rauschy, Updated « Illinois Reason – Tuesday, Apr 22, 08 @ 11:44 [...]
April 23, 2008 at 10:34 am
John
Rob, your knitted brow comes across so strongly in your “rebuttal”.
The pro-Obama theme on this, joined by you and Rich Miller at Capitol Fax, is to tarbrush Rauschenberger and not take his comments at face value. Attack the messenger and ignore the message. Let’s assume for argument’s sake that Rausch is all that you suggest: “bitter”, “angry”, “jealous”. That does not impeach the truth of what he is saying about Obama’s general assembly tenure.
In fact, in all the Rauschy bashing, you folks are ignoring that State Senator Dan Cronin has said much the same thing. Actually, Cronin’s remarks have been more direct and pointed. (Don’t through Kirk Dillard back at me, because all Kirk said was that he believed that Barack was someone who could work across party lines, not that he was some legislative superstar. And doesn’t the strong negative reaction from Dillard’s Republican colleagues show that they agree more with the Cronin, Rauschenberger assessment than Dillard’s?) I have spoken with a few other Republican legislators and lobbyists, and they have stated that Obama, was a “nothing” or a “nobody” in Springfield, yet a devoted vote with the “Chicago bloc”, despite his Hyde Park affectations.
Did it occur to you folks that Rauschenberger’s debate challenge to Obama was calculated as a second-stringer’s challenge to another second-stringer? Recall that both Hull and Hynes were considered way ahead in the Dem primary until the final days of the campaign. And do you propose a debate to demonstrate your affinity for your opponent or to showcase the superiority of your record and policy positions over your opponent? I think Rauschenberger was gambling on the second. So the debate challenge doesn’t neatly stack up as an unspoken endorsement of Obama.
Rauschenberger’s tenure over Obama, though minimized by your “three years” remark, has more measured importance by virtue of the fact that Rauschenberger spent more time in the majority, which makes a big difference in one’s record and prestige, and achieved statewide recognition as an expert on state fiscal matters, as acknowledged by Rich Miller.
Which brings us to the Todd Spivak report of 2-28-08 which appears on line at houstonpress.com. Again, you don’t have the hard facts to rebut the revealing backstory reported by Spivak but resort to name-calling. The report underscores the relative insignificance of Obama’s legislative career until Jones decided to groom him for the U.S. Senate in early 2003. Senator Ricky Hendron and others loudly complained to the press earlier that Jones had forced them to yield credit on their legistation to Obama. Why would Jones have to do that if Obama already had a distinguished, or even a distinctive, record as a legislator? The facts are pretty clear: Obama’s record as an Illinois legislator are as lackluster as Rauschenberger and Cronin have claimed.
Finally, ooooh, you have outed me as a Republican. Big surprise. However, not that a blog posting would convince you otherwise, I did not support Rauschenberger in any of this statewide campaign and I have had nothing to do with the URF since Jim Oberweis, Fran Eaton, and others took over the operation a few years ago. Believe it or not, I just simply want to see a more honest picture of Obama portrayed out there in the marketplace of ideas than the hagiography that your and your comrades are so eager to embrace. So if my observations align with those of Eaton and Rauschenberger, so be it. I would rather be in that camp than that of Rev Wright or Bill Ayers any day.
April 23, 2008 at 3:05 pm
robnesvacil
John, Do you have anything to actually say, or just talking points that you’ve copied and pasted?
J: “your knitted brow comes across so strongly”
1. Actually, it was a smile. Tho’ I suppose it was a “strong” smile.
J: “…tarbrush Rauschenberger and not take his comments at face value. Attack the messenger and ignore the message.”
2. How is pointing out the context behind Sen. Rauschenberger’s remarks “attacking” him? I did take his comments at face value. They’re worthless without the context which, unfortunately for both of you, bursts his bubbles.
Oh, and Mr. Miller quite clearly stated that Sen. Rauschenberger did have some “very good points”. He can speak for himself with regards to the rest of your attempt at spinning away his own points.
J: “That does not impeach the truth of what he is saying about Obama’s general assembly tenure”
3. What “impeaches” the “truth” of what Sen. Rauschenberger is saying are actual facts which disprove his “truthiness”.
J: “I have spoken with a few other Republican legislators and lobbyists, and they have stated that Obama, was a “nothing” or a “nobody” in Springfield”
4. Should we be surprised that Republicans are not fond of a Democratic candidate and are willing to launch ad hominems against him for no reason other than spite?
J: “Did it occur to you folks that Rauschenberger’s debate challenge to Obama was calculated as a second-stringer’s challenge to another second-stringer? Recall that both Hull and Hynes were considered way ahead in the Dem primary until the final days of the campaign.”
5. A few problems with this line of reasoning. Hull was ahead by virtue of his media saturation. He had name recognition but that was about it — his support was incredibly soft (having met the guy, it’s not too difficult to figure out why). Hynes was the quasi-Establishment candidate but his campaign never really took off with the actual voters. Obama not only won the primary, he won it outright with a majority of the votes. I wouldn’t exactly call that “second string” though clearly it’s a free country and you can compare Obama’s 53% first place finish to Rauschenberger’s 20% third place as both being “second stringers” if you like.
J: “And do you propose a debate to demonstrate your affinity for your opponent or to showcase the superiority of your record and policy positions over your opponent? I think Rauschenberger was gambling on the second.”
6. This is a fair enough point, though generally that strategy – “showcase the superiority…” – works better within a party for a primary… And usually it’s the candidate who needs earned media the most that proposes the debates. You’ll note Sen. Obama did not feel a need to accept.
If his only desire was to “showcase the superiority,” Sen. Rauschenberger could’ve proposed a debate against Dan Hynes or Gery Chico or even Nancy Skinner as a means of demonstrating policy and philosophical differences.
He chose Obama.
J: “Rauschenberger’s tenure over Obama, though minimized by your “three years” remark, has more measured importance by virtue of the fact that Rauschenberger spent more time in the majority, which makes a big difference in one’s record and prestige…”
7. Now being in the majority makes one more important? Does the spin ever end with you? Obama has proven in the US Senate that majority or minority status is unimportant when working on worthy legislation … just ask Senators Tom Coburn and John Warner.
J: “… and achieved statewide recognition as an expert on state fiscal matters, as acknowledged by Rich Miller.”
8. He must’ve forgotten his “tarbrush” that day.
J: “Which brings us to the Todd Spivak report…”
9. Actually, nothing brought us to that report. You threw it in to the discussion out of the blue in an attempt to gloss over Sen. Rauschenberger’s own fibs and spin.
J: “Senator Ricky Hendron and others loudly complained to the press earlier…”
10. There’s a reason Sen. Rickey Hendon has the nicknames he does. Resorting to using him as a reference isn’t exactly a ringing endorsement for the points you’re trying (but failing) to make.
J: “Finally, ooooh, you have outed me as a Republican”
11. I just asked. You are the one who outed yourself.
J: “I just simply want to see a more honest picture of Obama portrayed out there in the marketplace of ideas…”
12. I’ll look forward to your comments on an honest picture of McCain in the near future.
J: “…than the hagiography that your and your comrades are so eager to embrace.”
13: How does noting the context missing from Sen. Rauschenberger’s anti-Obama spin add to this so-called “hagiography” of yours?
J: “So if my observations align with those of Eaton and Rauschenberger, so be it. I would rather be in that camp than that of Rev Wright or Bill Ayers any day.”
14. Are you saying concern for the poor, ensuring kids have a good education, and the like are bad things…? And that fibbing and spinning are good…?
…Hey, it’s a free country. To each their own, John.
April 26, 2008 at 3:29 pm
John
robnesvacil, perhaps someday you will learn that contradiction (particularly, off point contradiction) is not argument. But since you have now clearly outed yourself as a man of the left (justifying the anti-Establishment Wright and Ayers), perhaps you are just as content to resort to the tired leftist tactic of obfuscation rather than engage in serious argument or deal with the facts. Your discomfort with the facts that I have alluded to is indicated by your denial of them without proof. In the end, you and Rich Miller simply resort to the ad hominem: Rauschenberger is simply jealous, and cannot be believed, and certainly don’t believe anything those Republicans say… I remind you that liberal Democrats in this state have controlled things entirely since 2003 and few believe the current environment is very pretty. But I leave you to your leftist fantasies……
April 26, 2008 at 4:55 pm
robnesvacil
John,
One would think an attorney of all people wouldn’t be so blinded by partisan opinion, but one would clearly be wrong as you continue to prove by not actually demonstrating how it is that Sen. Rauschenberger’s spin is anything other than, well, spin.
Instead, you continue to try and distract away from my premise that Sen. Rauschenberger is simply playing the part of partisan blowhard by bringing up random thoughts from your head that are barely related to Obama’s career as a State Senator and even less related to Sen. Rauschenberger’s current myopic anti-Obama screeds — opinion essays from a Texas reporter, complaints about Springfield’s current leadership, and even a few honorable mentions of a black pastor (and ex-Marine) and a college professor.
Had you bothered to read this blog and what I’ve written, you’d know that I am one of those folks who don’t “believe the current environment is very pretty.” And I’d hardly call the “three tops” in Springfield “liberal Democrats”. They are essentially Dems in name only and, given their shenanigans which run counter to open, honest government, do not well represent the Democratic (nor even the liberal) philosophy.
That has zilch to do with State Sen. Rauschenberger’s hypocritical spin against US Sen. Obama who is running for President, not Governor, or your defense of Sen. Rauschenberger’s partisan railings.
Rausch and Obama were in the State Senate at the same time.
Yet Rausch is only just now coming out and saying the guy didn’t do anything … ignoring the fact that he chose Obama, among all the other candidates, to challenge in a series of Lincoln-Douglas style debates. At the time your friend Tom Roeser wrote that Rauschenberger considered Obama, “the most formidable of the eight major Democratic contenders”.
What changed between 2004 and 2008? In 2004, both were State Senators running for an open US Senate seat. Today, one has run 3 failed campaigns for higher office and is now a lobbyist (working hand-in-hand with Democratic lobbyists, btw) while the other won that US Senate seat and is on the verge of becoming a major party’s nominee for President.
The list of suddenly different stories from Rauschy goes on…
Essentially, John, just because you are choosing to ignore these facts as they are presented to you does not mean those very facts cease to exist.
Indeed, those partisan blinders you’re wearing are apparently so taut ’round your head that they’ve prevented you from reading Rich Miller’s contention that Sen. Rauschenberger has made, quote, “some very good points.”
Now, for whatever reason you’re ignoring that to declare that Miller is simply resorting to ad hominems. Miller is a journalist that is as fair as they come; lambasting politicians and pundits of all stripes and, likewise, acknowledging “good points” no matter who makes them — he’s even put me in my place from time to time. On his blog and in his weekly column, he does express his opinions.
In light of the many facts Miller, myself and others have pointed out, it does indeed appear to any normal, reasonable, open-minded citizen that Sen. Rauschenberger has some ulterior motive for his suddenly new and different stories on Obama. Perhaps it is due to jealousy that Sen. Obama’s career has advanced whereas Sen. Rauschenberger’s has not. Perhaps it is out of financial interests as he and his colleagues at Illinois Review consider his role as president of the United Republican Fund. Perhaps it is basic partisan acrimony.
You, sir, are proving yourself to be in the latter category, pure partisan acrimony, instead of a fair-minded citizen wanting to simply “see a more honest picture of Obama portrayed out there in the marketplace of ideas.”
PS: Since Democrats are in charge in this state, wouldn’t you yourself be “anti-Establishment”?
With that I’ll leave you to your right-winger fantasies, whatever that means…
April 26, 2008 at 4:57 pm
robnesvacil
PS John,
I note that despite the fact you’ve made several allusions to “reports of” this or that, you’ve continuously failed to actually back up your hearsay with any links to other information, factual or otherwise.
Try some hypertext if you care to reply, it will offer others reading our conversation a more complete picture of your perspective. Just a suggestion.