Teri O’Brien - America’s Conservative Warrior Princess » My Choice for Governor in Tomorrow’s Primary

IMPORTANT NOTICE: THE FOLLOWING REPRESENTS MY PERSONAL VIEWS AND OPINIONS, AND IN NO WAY SHOULD BE CONSTRUED TO REPRESENT THE THOUGHTS OF WLS RADIO, ITS MANAGEMENT OR ANY RELATED ENTITY. THIS ENDORSEMENT IS STRICTLY FROM ONE PERSON, ME.

This has been a tough decision, but one that I am very comfortable announcing. As most of you know, I firmly believe that any of the four guys running against Judy Barr Topinsky (so nicknamed by me for her backstabbing support of Democrat incumbent Bill Lipinski against up and coming Republican Jim Nalepa in 1994) would be a much better choice. That’s an understatement. It will not be possible for me to support the polka-dancing, accordion-playing, mouth-shooting-off lady treasurer in November under any circumstances because to do so would be a betrayal to the great legacy of the Republican party. I can’t tell you precisely when it happened, but at some point, here in Illinois, the party of Lincoln and Reagan ceased to be a party of ideas. Instead, we are the party of the Combine, that cabal of insiders more interested in spreading around our money in the form of lucrative contracts among their various friends than fussing over “ideology” or acting like “right wing nuts.” Democrat, Republican what’s the difference as long as one of the tribe is in power? And make no mistake: Judy Barr Topinka is part of the tribe.

So now Job 1 is to defeat Judy in Disguise tomorrow, and Job 2 is to do so with a principled conservative. There are two candidates who fit that description, Bill Brady and Jim Oberweis.

BRADY
Bill Brady is a very impressive guy. I thought he was genuinely charming when he came in-studio to appear on my show. I also had the pleasure of meeting his lovely wife last October when I was the keynote speaker at the Illinois Citizens for Life dinner. He’s a successful businessman, and he’s been elected to the legislature, proving he can win an election. He’s great on the 2nd amendment, which you know is near and dear to my heart, and on taxes, another extremely important issue as we watch Blago lie awake at night dreaming up new ways to spend money that the state doesn’t have. He is pro-life. From a strategic point of view, he also has the advantage of being able to turn out downstate voters against Blago. These things are all good.

But it’s not all good. Sen. Brady voted for in-state tuition for illegal immigrants and against school vouchers. Even more troubling, he refuses to call for the resignation of National Committeeman Bob Kjellander, the poster boy for business as usual (corruption, self-dealing, one hand washes the other—you get the idea), and the guy who made an $809,000 commission on one of Blago’s bond deals (remember, the tribe helps its members). When I asked him about this when he was on the show, he said Bob Kjellander hasn’t done anything illegal, to which I responded “Has Rod Blagojevich?” He had to admit that, so far anyway, Blago hasn’t been indicted or convicted (yes, timing is everything).

OBERWEIS
As many of you know, I have had my differences with Mr. Oberweis, most notably back in 2004 when he managed to get on the front page of the Liberal Death Star (the New York Times). There is one sure-fire way for a Republican to achieve the approval of the editors of the LDS, and that’s to disagree with and criticize another Republican. If that Republican happens to be the President of the United States, you get on the front page. Since John Kerry didn’t win the election, I can forgive him that mistake. I think he’s learned his lesson. I hope so. (Plus, he’s a really nice guy, and he’s been known to hand out some delicious ice cream. It is really terrific!) He’s right on the 2nd amendment, which is mandatory for me, and he’s pro-life, at least since 2004. (see below). Like me, he opposes gambling expansion. So far, so good.

Still, I am troubled by some of Mr. Oberweis’ 180’s on some hot button issues, such as abortion and even the issue with which he is most identified, immigration. That last one might be too strong, because unlike abortion, where he went from saying in 2002 that pro-lifers could become like the Taliban if Roe were overruled to being pro-life in 2004, with immigration, he went from not saying anything about it in 2002 to making it the most important issue in the history of politics in 2004. It was the immigration issue that made the hearts of the editors at the New York Times leap at the mention of his name. I agree with Jim that it’s a national security issue, but wasn’t that true in the post-9/11 world of 2002? Of course, it was. It’s hard to escape the suspicion that these dramatic changes in position on important issues are the result of anything other than political expediency, so I can understand why some are skeptical of his genuine commitment.

THE BOTTOM LINE
I am prepared to give Mr. Oberweis the benefit of the doubt on the flip-flops. No politician is perfect on every issue, but I think Jim is the best candidate, and I have satisfied myself that he has seen the light and is a genuine committed conservative: right on the 2nd amendment, right on abortion, and most of all, not part of the Combine. Even more important, I believe he has the best chance to beat Judy in Disguise and therefore offer some hope of returning the Illinois Republican Party to a party of ideas. Are we the party of back room deals, the politics of personal aggrandizement and naked opportunism, what I like to call the party of PUNY? Or are we going to be the truly GRAND Old Party, the party of ideas that gave our nation Lincoln and Reagan? Is our state going to continue to be a big ugly blue zit in a sea of red middle America? I think Jim Oberweis represents our best chance at answering “yes,” to the first question and “no” to the second, and therefore, I’ll be voting for him tomorrow.